Remington, Kristi L
From: Remington, Kristi L Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2002 11:15 AM To: Willett, Don; Keefer, Wendy J; Charnes, Adam; ' Brett Kavanaugh' Subject: SJC meeting
There was one- other issue I forgot to mention:
be handling logistics.
- Original Message- From: Willett, Don Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:04 AM To: Remington, Kristi L Subject: RE: RE: RE: Tues meetings
Did they see these weekly counsel meetings starting in Jan.?
--Original Message-- From: Remington, Kristi L Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:59 AM To: Willett, Don; Goodling, Monica Cc: Charnes, Adam; Keefer, Wendy J; 'Brett Kavanaugh (E-mail)' Subject: RE: RE: RE: Tues meetings
The- SJC staff called the meeting to let everyone know that January - March would be very busy with judges. They also wanted to make sure the counsels would get their individual Senators involved. There was a lot of talking at the meeting, but the following were the major issues for OLP/WH:
- Original Message-- From: Willett, Don C ~~._, IAl~.J-~~.J~ .. ri~~-mL..~~ t\,1 "lt\t\"l 1 f\,1 1 I\ r. 11
007104-001877 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5287 ;:>t::lll, V\lt::Ullt::!>UdY, Ut::'-1:IIIUt::I V'l-1 £VV£ .J.V;.J. J. l"'\IVI To: Remington, Kristi L; Goodling, Monica Cc: Charnes, Adam; Keefer, Wendy J; Brett Kavanaugh (E-mail) Subject: FW: RE: RE: Tues meetings
Kristi -
When you get a chance today, can you e-mail us a download on yesterday's 2:15 Manny mtg.? Thanks.
ORW
-Original Message- From: Manuel Miranda (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 2:44 PM To: Willett, Don Cc: Remington, Kristi L Subject: Re:RE: RE: Tues meetings
Kristi is great, it's really so that one person can report back to all at OLP what we are looking at from a final product perspective.
I am copying Brett on this string in case he wants to attend. This meeting is just to touch base and I didn't want to just take a lot of folk's time, but Brett or any others from the WH Counsel are welcome.
(Brett, it would be useful if your new press person attended the 3:15 along with Merci.)
______Reply Separator______Subject: RE: RE: Tues meetings Author: "Willett; Don"
Manny, I now have 4 judicial interviews scattered throughout Tues. afternoon.
Kristi can cover the Hill mtg. if you want to keep the 2:15 time slot.
Is this Hill/DoJ only, no WH?
ORW
-Original Message-- From: Manuel Miranda [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:48 PM To: Willett, Don; Goodling, Monica Subject: Re:RE: Tues meetings
Great, it's just for purposes of reporting to everyone at OLP. And so as not to take to many people's time.
______Reply Separator______Subject: RE: Tues meetings Author: "Willett; Don"
007104-001878 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5287 I have a judicial interview @ 2:00 on Tues. but can likely get someone to cover it.
Bottom line: I and/or probably Adam {maybe Wendy and/or Kristi, too) will be there.
DRW
--Original Message--- From: Manuel Miranda (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:20 PM To: Willett, Don; Goodling, Monica Subject: Tues meetings
Monica and Don, I copied you on an email to counsel with the thought that you or someone from your offices could attend the respective meetings on Tuesday. Let me know. Manny ______Forward Header______To: JC Counsels Subject: Nominations Meetings Author: Manuel Miranda Date: 11/ 27/2002 2:20 PM
Hello friends. Now that we all have had t ime to think a few things through, we would like to bring us a ll together for some joint thinking on judicial nominations in the immediate future. Let's meet on Tuesday at 2:15 in the Utah Room (Hatch personal office). Feel free to bring other counsel or staff who will work with you on nomnaitions issues. Although the hope is to get us to have a relaxed discussion, the meeting should last no more than one hour. One other thing, please invite your Senator's press secretary or commnications staff on nominations issues either to attend with you at 2:15 or to arrive at 3:15 for a meeting on communications. Have a peaceful and Happy Thanksgiving! Manny
007104-001879 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5287 Newstead, Jennifer
From: Newstead, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:07 PM To: '/DDV=-H [email protected]/DDT=RFC - 822/0=INETGW/P=GOV+DOJ/A =TELEMAIL/C=US/'; Dinh, Viet; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'C [email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Brett_M._ [email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Helgard_C._Walker@ who.eop.gov' Subject: RE: Wash. Times Story on Judges
At yesterday's confirmation working group meeting we discussed a possible strategy-
would be welcome.
Jen
-Original Message- From: /DDV=H._Christopher_ [email protected]/DDT = RFC-822/O=IN ETGW/P=GOV+ DOJ/A=TELEMAIL/C=US/ [ mailto:/DDV=H. [email protected] /DDT =-RFC-822/O=IN ETG W/P=GOV+DOJ/A=TELEMAIL/C=US/] Sent Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:55 PM To: Newstead, Jennifer; Dinh, Viet; [email protected]; Rachel_L_ [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Helgard_ [email protected] Subject: Wash. Times .Story on Judges
0071 04-001880 Document ID: 0.7.19343.6868 0071 04-001881 Document ID: 0.7.19343.6868 Newstead, Jennifer
From: Newstead, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:36 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Dinh, Viet Subject: Attachments:
Here are talking points on Pickering that
-Original Message-- From: [email protected] {mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:18 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Newstead, Jennifer; Dinh, Viet; Alberto_ [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Helgard _ [email protected]; Bradford _A._ [email protected]; Heather_Wingate@w ho.eop.gov Subject: Re: Pickering
Anne: I'll talk to Viet/Jen who have the lead on this and will make sure you get the info you need.
Anne Womack 01/23/2002 03:11:31 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message Subject: Re: Pickering (Document link: Brett M. Kavanaugh)
0071 04-001882 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7062 someone please give me some background on what the problem is with him.
Message Copied To: ______
alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop noel j. francisco/who/eop@eop helgard c. walker/who/eop@eop bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop [email protected] @ inet [email protected] @ inet heather wingate/who/ eop@eop
0071 04-001883 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7062 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 5:41 PM To: ' Bradford_A._ [email protected]'; Newstead, Jennifer; ' [email protected]' Subject: RE: WSJ
-Original Message-- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 4:53 PM To: Newstead, Jennifer; Dinh, Viet; [email protected] Subject: WSJ
Jess Bravin of the WSJ is doing a story on tomorrow's news conference with a specific focus on Pickering. His number is - · Someone should probably
0071 04-001884 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7079 [email protected]
From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:57 AM To: Newstead, Jennifer; Dinh, Viet Subject: Pickering This is almost certainly not a novel idea, but I think ·-
0071 04-001885 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7072 Newst ead, Jennifer
From: Newstead, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:34 AM To: '[email protected] ' Cc: Dinh, Viet; ' [email protected]' Subject: RE: Pickering
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] (mailto:Anne_ [email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:51 AM To: Newstead, Jennifer Cc: Dinh, Viet; Brett_ [email protected] Subject: RE: Pickering
0071 04-001 886 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7074 Newstead, Jennifer
From: Newstead, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:39 PM To: Dinh, Viet; '[email protected]' Cc: Benedi, Lizette D; Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: FW: Pickering Op-Ed Attachments: Dillard.Oped.wpd
FYI, our first report on this morning's press conference is that
Pickering heard again that the hearing will be the first week in Feb. with Feinstein chairing.
Jen
- Original Message-- From: Ed Haden (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:33 PM To: Newstead, Jennifer Subject: Pickering Op,-Ed
Mime message with no plain text.
007104-001887 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7076 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:25 AM To: '[email protected] '; Newstead, Jennifer Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Pickering
We will monitor item 2; we already have pre-arranged surrogates and op~ed materials to go.
--Original Message--- From: Anne_ [email protected] [mailto:Anne_ [email protected]] Sent~ Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:23 PM To: Newstead, Jennifer Cc: Dinh, Viet; [email protected] Subject: RE: Pickering
Brett and I can work together on that from this end, or Viet and Jennifer, if you all would like to take the lead, that's fine too. Just let me know.
let me know how everyone wants to divide up the labor. Thanks
0071 04-001888 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7081 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 2:55 PM To: ' [email protected]'; 'Alberto [email protected]'; 'Ti [email protected]'; ' [email protected]' Cc: Newstead, Jennifer Su bject: RE: letter to Leahy
Brad,
-
Viet
-Original Message-- From: Bradford_A._ [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:55 PM To: Alberto_ [email protected]; Timothy_ [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Newstead, Jennifer, Dinh, Viet Subject: Letter to Leahy
0071 04-001889 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7089 {See attached file: Response to Leahy Floor Statement.doc}
Here's the draft. I'm also sending it to Viet and Jennifer in case they have suggestions.- -
007104-001890 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7089 [email protected]
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2002 5:57 PM To: Newstead, Jennifer; Dinh, Viet; [email protected]; Timothy_ [email protected]; Bradford_A _ [email protected]; [email protected] .gov; Courtney_S._ [email protected]; /DDV=H._Christopher_ [email protected] p.gov/DDT=RFC-822/0=INETGW/P=GOV+DOJ/A=TELEMAIL/C=US/; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Pickering/Holmstead precedent
I missed the meeting, but Kyle informs me that there was discussion of the DOJ documents related to Pickering. Four t houghts:
0071 04-001 891 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7111 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:28 AM To: '[email protected]'; ' [email protected]'; Sutton, Jason Cc: Newstead, Jennifer; '/DDV=H._Christopher_ [email protected]/DDT =-RFC - 822/O=INETGW/P=GOV+DOJ/A=TE LEMAIL/C=US/' Subject: RE: couple of things that need immediate attn.
Done with Rufe. Jason sutton will coordinate redaction briefing.
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] ( mailto:Heather_ [email protected]) Sent~ Wednesday, February 20, 2002 7:04 PM To: Dinh, Viet; Brett_ [email protected] Cc: Newstead, Jennifer; /[email protected]/DDT=RFC-822/0=-INETGW/P=GOV+ OOJ/A=TELEMAIL/C=US/ Subject: couple of things that need immediate attn.
Viet and Brett, during our meeting today w/Specter's staffthey mentioned that they had rec'd a call from Cynthia Rufe inquiring about whether or not she should sign the ABA confidentiality waiver or if she should sign the one from OLP.
Also, Viet, I need to know what time you all can do the briefing tomorrow for Judiciary on the content contained in the redacted portions of the Pickering documents.
007104-001892 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7240 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:03 AM To: '[email protected]'; O' Brien, Pat; '[email protected]' Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Judicial Nominations & The Biz Community
We are already on it.
-Original Message-- From: [email protected] ( mailto:Heather_ [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:00 AM To: O' Brien, Pat; Dinh, Viet; [email protected] Cc: Ziad_S._ [email protected] Subject: Judicial Nominations & The Biz Community
(Embedded image moved Chris_ [email protected] (Chris Myers) to file: 03/12/2002 02:15:24 PM pic06555.pcx)
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc: (Barbara Ledeen), Heather Wingate/WHO/EOP@EOP, Ziad S. Ojakli/WHO/EOP@EOP Subject: Judicial Nominations & The Biz Community
To: Dept of Justice & White House Ofc of Legal Counsel Fr: Chris Myers (42928) & Barbara Ledeen
007104-001893 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7284 (42763), Sen Repub Conference------
007104-001894 Document JD: 0.7.19343.7284 Koebele, Steve
From: Koebele,Steve Sent: Tuesday,May21,20026:54PM To: Willett,Don;Dinh,Viet;'[email protected]' Cc: Loughlin,AnnL(OLP);Keefer,WendyJ;Sales,Nathan Subject: SenHutchison -RequestforApproval to Send Attachments: AbortionCaseCites-FeinsteinVersion.wpd;Enron-Cases-LineCommentfinal 4-17-02.wpd;Enron-Cases-Analysis04-17-02.wpd;PaytoPlay-Rebuttal-Very CloseHold-FrontPage.doc;PaytoPlay-Rebuttal-V eryCloseHold-Exhibit.DOC
Don, Viet & Brett- -
Approval Request Re Justice (b) Owe (5)
Background: During e thMay16 meeting ofJustice Owen, Sen Feinstein, ison Sen. and Hutch staff e of th two senators', Sen Feinstein requested (1) copies of the parental notification and buffer zone cases, (2) two articles publishedby thHouston e Ch ronicle and theAustin American-Statesman coveringe thJuly 1998buffer zone case, and(3)Enron case information. Further, parroting theTexans for Public Justice Pay to Play report (linking contributions to the contributors' success rate), Sen Feinstein also questioned Justice Owen regarding connections between lawyer/law firm contributions and contributor success at the Court. Sen Hutchison inquired ofJustice Owen, out ofSen Feinstein's hearing, whether counterveiling arguments could be proffered.
Sen Hutchison Request: CounselJoe Jacquot, wouldlike Pay all to Play rebuttalinformation in order to present in camera to Sen Hutchison. This documentation is in addition to theparental notification, buffer zone, and Enron case information.
Key Commentary: (b) (5)
f
-Arguments: (b) (5)
(b) (5)
Attached are the following:
1. Index to copies of theparental notification andbuffer zone cases.
007104-001895 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7614 2. Enron case information, two items.
3. Report rebuttal cover sheet.
4. Link to Pay to Play report on TPJ website (our Exhibit A).
http://www.tpj.org/reports/paytoplay/paytoplay.pdf
5. Report rebuttal Exhibit B.
Thankyou very much. Steve 307-3024.
007104-001896 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7614 Opinions of the Supreme Court of Texas Involving Parental Notification and Buffer Zones
Parental Notification Cases
TAB 1 In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2000) TAB 2 In re Doe , 2 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2000) TAB 3 In re Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2000) TAB 4 In re Doe 3, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2000) TAB 5 In re Doe 4, 19 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2000) TAB 6 In re Doe , 4 19 S.W.3d 337(Tex. 2000) TAB 7 In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) TAB 8 In re Doe 10, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 47(No. 02-0376) TAB 9 Orders in which the Supreme Court of Texas issue a writtendid not opinion. In re Doe , 5 (00-0636); In re Doe , (00-0801);6 In re Doe , 7(00-1242); In re Doe , 8 (01-0705); and In re Doe , (02-0132).9
Owen Writes for Majority While Dissent Points to Parental Notification Statute
TAB 10 Abrams v. Jones, 35 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2000).
Buffer Zones Around Abortion Clinics
TAB 1 1 Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood ofston Hou and Southeast Texas, Inc., 975 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1998). TAB 12 Media clips covering the buffer zone cases. Houston Chronicle, July 4, 1998; Auand stin American-Statesman, July 4, 1998.
Rider Barring Use of State Funds to Dispense Drugs to Minors Without Parental Consent
TAB 13 Patterson v. Planned Parenthood stonof Hou and theast SouTexas, , 97Inc. 1 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998).
007104-001897 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7614-000001 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, July19, 2002 2:14 PM To: Brett Kavanaugh (E-mail); Anne Womack(E-mail); HeatherWingate (E-mail) Cc: Willett, Don; Remington, Kristi L; Koebele, Steve; Charnes, Adam; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: Owen'sopeningstatement Attachments: Owen openingstatement 2.doc
All,
Here'saproposeddraftforOwen'sopeningstatement. (b) (5)
Thanks, Nathan
007104-001898 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5088 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 200210:45 AM To: Dinh1 Viet; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Willett, Don; Ko-ebele, Steve; Remington, Kristi L; 'Anne_ [email protected]'; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: Administration Document on Owen to give to Re-pubs and De-ms
The purple kool-aid is starting to look mighty refreshing to Kristi, Steve, and I.
- Original Message-- From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:44 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Willett, Don; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve; '[email protected]'; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: Administration Document on Owen to give to Re-pubs and Dems
Okay, then let's re-prioritize accordingly. Don and Wendy, please ensure adequate staff support-I fear that Nathan is about to die in his office. thanks
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] {mailto:Heather_ [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 200210:01 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Willett, Don; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve; Dinh, Viet; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Administration Document on Owen to give to Re-pubs and De-ms
007104-001899 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5075 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:21 PM To: Willett, Don; Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Koebele, Steve; 'Heather Wingate (E-mail)'; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems
Roger.
-Original Message- From: Willett, Don Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:20 PM To: Sales, Nathan; Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Koebele, Steve; 'Heather Wingate (E-mail)'; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Oems
--Original Message-- From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:17 PM To: Willett, Don; Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Koebele, Steve; 'Heather Wingate (E-mail)'; Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Oems
Sounds good.
The 3-pager on , etc. cases is done. I'll tackle the- .
-Original Message- From: Willett, Don Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:15 PM To: Sales, Nathan; Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Koebele, Steve; Heather Wingate (E-mail); Keefer, Wendy J Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Re-pubs and Dems
0071 04-001900 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 - Original Message- From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:02 PM To: Willett, Don; Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Koebele, Steve Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Oems
I don't think it's possible to do a one-pager for every single case cited by the Dems. -
-Original Message-- From: Willett, Don Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:55 PM To: Remington, Kristi L; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Oems
Everyone, Brett and I just spoke.
Brett, pis. correct me if I get any of this wrong.
0071 04-001901 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 ORW
- Original Message- From: Remington, Kristi L Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:37 PM To: ' [email protected]'; Willett, Don Cc: Charnes, Adam; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve Subject: RE: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems
- Original Message- From: [email protected] [mailto:8rett_ [email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 1:06 PM To: Willett, Don Cc: Charnes, Adam; Remington, Kristi L; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve Subject: Re: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Oems
(Embedded image moved "Willett, Don"
Record Type: Record
0071 04-001902 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WH0/E0P@E0P
cc: "Remington, Kristi L"
Brett, see below. Did you envision We're trying to decipher what you have in mind for that part of your proposed outline.
-Original Message- From: Willett, Don Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:25 PM To: Remington, Kristi L; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve Subject: FW: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems -Does Brett's: proposed outline for the - materials (below) envision puttin
DRW
-Original Message- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Willett, Don; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve; Dinh, Viet; [email protected]; Anne_ [email protected] Subject: Re: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems
I agree with Heather. I think it would be great to
0071 04-001903 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 Heather Wingate 07/17/2002 09:40:56 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message bee: Subject: Re: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems (Document link: Brett M. Kavanaugh)
Brett M. Kavanaugh 07/17/2002 08:58:43 AM
Record Type: Record
To: "Sales, Nathan"
Maybe a goal of
(Embedded image moved "Sales, Nathan"
0071 04-001904 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 Kecora , ype: Kecora
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc: Subject: Re: Administration Document on Owen to give to Repubs and Dems
This sounds like a good idea to me. We definitely can put this together, but t iming may be a bit of an issue. OLP is currently
- Original Message--- From: [email protected]
- Original Message · From:Brett M. Kavanaugh/ WHO/EOP To:
0071 04-001905 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 (largely done) (also with a 1-page summary of each major subject matter- again largely done} [this part
Message Sent To: ______
"Willett, Don"
Message Copied To:______
"willett, don"
Message Copied To:______
"--•-- __ ...L. __ 11 ___ ,.__L __ --1--r-\. . -J-! --~~-
0071 04-001906 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 sa1es, naman -.:.naman.sa1es(!:!)usaoJ.gov;, "willett, don"
007104-001907 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5097 Koebele, Steve
From: Koebele,Steve Sent: Monday,July22,20028:44PM To: '[email protected]';Willett,Don Cc: Dinh,Viet;Charnes,Adam;Remington,KristiL Subject: Cases-LengthofTimeatTXSCT Attachments: Fordv.Miles-OtherCaseWait-Rev.xls
Brett --Following up on the Ford v Miles case, attached is a breakdown of cases and the lenth of wait at the Supreme Court of Texas (far right hand column provides the number of days). Ford Motor v. Mile is 173rd longest time on the Court.
Thank you, Steve.
007104-001908 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
Number Style Granted Issued Time 94-0287 State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau 06/15/94 07/09/97 1120 94-0325 Healthtrust, Inc. v. Caldwell 06/22/94 05/16/97 1059 94-0329 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Caldwell 06/22/94 05/16/97 1059 94-0385 Healthtrust, Inc. v. Caldwell 06/22/94 05/16/97 1059 D-0446Foremost Paving, Inc. v. Lopez 02/06/91 11/24/93 1022 C-9639Chapa v. Garcia 03/21/90 12/31/92 1016 C-6649Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Prod., Inc. 09/23/87 06/27/90 1008 C-6733Kinerd v. Colonial Leasing Co. 02/24/88 11/14/90 994 C-9343State Dept. of Highways v. Payne 04/04/90 12/22/92 993 C-9502Minton v. Perez 03/21/90 11/11/92 966 C-8576Travis v. City of Mesquite 10/25/89 05/20/92 938 D-1507Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel 12/11/91 06/08/94 910 C-6617DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp. 12/16/87 06/06/90 903 C-8405Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co. 09/20/89 03/11/92 903 C-9343State Dept. of Highways v. Payne 04/04/90 09/23/92 903 C-7376Bowman v. Lumberton Indep. School Dist. 07/13/88 12/31/90 901 D-2022Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper 10/07/92 03/16/95 890 D-1239American Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Garcia 10/16/91 03/09/94 875 D-0184Twyman v. Twyman 12/19/90 05/05/93 868 C-6007Day & Co. v. Texland Petroleum, Inc. 10/28/87 03/07/90 861 95-1159 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez 06/14/96 10/15/98 853 C-6733Kinerd v. Colonial Leasing Co. 02/24/88 06/20/90 847 99-0673 Rocor Int'l, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 01/27/00 05/23/02 847 C-7480Stauffer v. Henderson 09/14/88 12/31/90 838 C-9403Walker v. Packer 01/24/90 05/07/92 834 C-6000Sun Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Jackson 07/15/87 10/25/89 833 97-0954 City of Midland v. O'Bryant 03/13/98 06/15/00 825 95-0355 Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson 09/14/95 12/11/97 819 C-9556Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd. 12/12/90 03/03/93 812 96-0583 X.L. Ins. Co. v. Mehaffy 11/15/96 02/04/99 811 D-1794HL Farm Corp. v. Self 03/11/92 05/11/94 791 D-1507Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel 12/11/91 02/02/94 784 95-0969 Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado 04/12/96 06/05/98 784 99-0313 Barnett v. Barnett 10/21/99 12/06/01 777 D-1693Exxon Corp. v. Chick Kam Choo 04/29/92 06/08/94 770 C-7339Martin v. Credit Protection Ass'n, Inc. 05/04/88 06/06/90 763 C-9403Walker v. Packer 01/24/90 02/19/92 756 D-0715McRoberts v. Ryals 06/05/91 06/30/93 756 D-1326C&H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson 05/27/92 06/22/94 756 96-1154 Quick v. City of Austin 09/04/97 09/30/99 756 97-0954 City of Midland v. O'Bryant 03/13/98 04/06/00 755 D-0872State v. Flag-Redfern Oil Co. 05/01/91 05/19/93 749 D-0874State v. Rutherford Oil Corp. 05/01/91 05/19/93 749 95-1159 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez 06/14/96 07/03/98 749 D-3173Krishnan v. Sepulveda 06/03/93 06/15/95 742 C-9989May v. United Services Ass'n 12/12/90 12/22/92 741 D-4561Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters 06/08/94 06/14/96 737 D-0740Valenzuela v. Aquino 05/01/91 05/05/93 735 D-0296Greathouse v. Charter Nat'l Bank-Southwest 12/19/90 12/22/92 734 94-0992 Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles 07/07/95 07/09/97 733 95-0085 Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Texaso. Oil C 06/22/95 06/20/97 729 94-0856 Vesecky v. Vesecky 12/08/94 11/15/96 708
Page 1
007104-001909 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-0756Graff v. Beard 06/19/91 05/19/93 700 D-1794HL Farm Corp. v. Self 03/11/92 02/09/94 700 97-1027 Osterberg v. Peca 03/13/98 02/10/00 699 97-1027 Osterberg v. Peca 03/13/98 02/03/00 692 D-2775Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats 12/16/92 11/03/94 687 D-0235William H. McGee & Co. v. Schick 01/23/91 12/09/92 686 D-0963Boyles v. Kerr 06/19/91 05/05/93 686 D-1903Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc. 03/25/92 02/09/94 686 97-1068 Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi 03/26/98 02/10/00 686 C-7291Eckman v. Centennial Sav. Bank 04/13/88 02/21/90 679 D-2830Public Utility Comm'n v. GTE-Southwest, Inc. 06/09/93 04/13/95 673 D-0872State v. Flag-Redfern Oil Co. 05/01/91 03/03/93 672 D-0874State v. Rutherford Oil Corp. 05/01/91 03/03/93 672 95-1036 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner 02/09/96 12/11/97 671 D-0650Railroad Comm'n v. Lone Star Gas Co. 03/06/91 12/31/92 666 D-3096Prudential Ins. Co. v. Jefferson Assoc., Ltd. 05/19/93 03/16/95 666 94-0278 Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 06/22/94 04/18/96 666 D-1794HL Farm Corp. v. Self 03/11/92 01/05/94 665 94-0023 United States Brass Corp. v. Kochie 05/18/94 03/07/96 659 D-1006State v. Schmidt 01/08/92 10/27/93 658 D-1509State v. Austex, Ltd. 01/08/92 10/27/93 658 97-1068 Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi 03/26/98 01/06/00 651 99-0793 Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison 03/09/00 12/20/01 651 96-1201 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver 03/21/97 12/31/98 650 D-1693Exxon Corp. v. Chick hooKam C 04/29/92 02/02/94 644 98-1128 Pustejovsky v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. 02/25/99 11/30/00 644 95-1036 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner 02/09/96 11/13/97 643 94-0008 Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp. 06/08/94 03/07/96 638 94-0123 United States Brass Corp. v. Andraus 06/08/94 03/07/96 638 C-8282Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Delanney 09/20/89 06/19/91 637 D-1235Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 04/08/92 01/05/94 637 94-0433 Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. 06/22/94 03/14/96 631 D-0489Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. 01/23/91 10/14/92 630 C-6007Day & Co. v. Texland Petroleum, Inc. 10/28/87 07/12/89 623 D-1693Exxon Corp. v. Chick Kam Choo 04/29/92 01/12/94 623 98-0685 FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin 10/01/98 06/15/00 623 C-7880Wingate v. Hajdik 10/19/88 07/03/90 622 94-0781 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy 11/03/94 07/12/96 617 C-7641Higginbotham v. General Life & Accident Ins. Co. 02/01/89 10/10/90 616 C-7796Wilson v. Dunn 02/15/89 10/24/90 616 C-7910Raborn v. Davis 10/19/88 06/27/90 616 D-1349Sage Street Assoc. v. Northdale Constr. Co. 10/23/91 06/30/93 616 D-1639Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell 04/01/92 12/08/93 616 D-2022Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper 10/07/92 06/15/94 616 D-4260Werner v. Colwell 11/24/93 08/01/95 615 C-7286Mitchell v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. 06/22/88 02/21/90 609 C-7551Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FDP Corp. 10/18/89 06/19/91 609 C-8367Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays 06/28/89 02/27/91 609 95-1014 City ofyler T v. Likes 04/12/96 12/11/97 608 96-0079 Murphy v. Campbell 04/12/96 12/11/97 608 C-7805Juliette Fowler Homes, Inc. v. Welch Assoc., Inc. 10/12/88 06/06/90 602 94-1124 Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd. 02/09/96 10/02/97 601 95-1291 Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, 05/31/96 Inc. 01/16/98 595
Page 2
007104-001910 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
96-0287 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone 10/18/96 06/05/98 595 96-0512 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak 10/18/96 06/05/98 595 D-3733City of La Porte v. Barfield 09/10/93 04/27/95 594 D-3836City of La Porte v. Prince 09/10/93 04/27/95 594 D-4100Mosley v. Employers Cas. Co. 02/02/94 09/14/95 589 94-1317 Federal Sign v. Texas Southern Univ. 11/09/95 06/20/97 589 D-0671Keetch v. Kroger Co. 04/24/91 12/02/92 588 C-8910Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling 06/13/90 01/15/92 581 D-1742In re J.W.T. 07/01/92 02/02/94 581 96-0881 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Marshall 12/13/96 07/14/98 578 96-0931 Ethyl Corp. v. Stone 12/13/96 07/14/98 578 D-0180Larsen v. FDIC 11/14/90 06/10/92 574 00-0081 Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard 08/24/00 03/21/02 574 95-0771 Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale 08/16/96 03/13/98 574 D-0992State v. Durham 09/05/91 03/31/93 573 D-0650Railroad Comm'n v. Lone Star Gas Co. 03/06/91 09/23/92 567 96-0244 Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Keneco Energy, Inc. 06/28/96 01/16/98 567 96-1131 In re EPIC Holdings, Inc. 06/12/97 12/31/98 567 96-1133 In re George 06/12/97 12/31/98 567 C-9115Joachim v. First Court of Appeals 11/15/89 05/30/91 561 D-2747Oliver v. Oliver 11/18/92 06/02/94 561 D-4260Werner v. Colwell 11/24/93 06/08/95 561 D-0296Greathouse v. Charter Nat'l Bank-Southwest 12/19/90 07/01/92 560 00-0325 Mariner Fin. Group v. Bossley 11/30/00 06/13/02 560 D-0571Hines v. Hash 05/30/91 12/09/92 559 96-0986 Latham v. Castillo 12/13/96 06/23/98 557 D-2786Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc. 10/21/92 04/28/94 554 D-0138Delaney v. University of Houston 10/24/90 04/29/92 553 D-2775Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats 12/16/92 06/22/94 553 C-7611Eye-Site, Inc. v. Blackburn 03/22/89 09/19/90 546 C-8910Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling 06/13/90 12/11/91 546 D-0732Westgate, Ltd. v. State 06/05/91 12/02/92 546 D-1326C&H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson 05/27/92 11/24/93 546 97-0182 Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Conoco, Inc. 10/02/97 04/01/99 546 98-0968 Texas Ass'n of Counties Pool v. Matagroda County 06/24/99 12/21/00 546 D-1903Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc. 03/25/92 09/19/93 543 96-0425 General Tire, Inc. v. Kepple 12/13/96 06/05/98 539 98-1076 Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson 01/07/99 06/29/00 539 D-4131Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Doe 02/02/94 07/21/95 534 D-4353National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Industries, Inc. 04/20/94 10/05/95 533 C-6649Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Prod., Inc. 09/23/87 03/08/89 532 C-7743Dow Chem. Co. v. Alfaro 11/16/88 05/02/90 532 C-8282Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Delanney 09/20/89 03/06/91 532 C-9128Peat Marwick Main & Co. v. Haass 03/28/90 09/11/91 532 C-9611Orange County v. Ware 06/06/90 11/20/91 532 D-0963Boyles v. Kerr 06/19/91 12/02/92 532 96-0244 Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Keneco Energy, Inc. 06/28/96 12/11/97 531 94-1227 American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell 01/11/96 06/20/97 526 C-6821Donwerth v. Preston II Chrysler-Dodge, Inc. 01/27/88 07/05/89 525 C-7446Chenault v. Bexar County Commissioners Court 07/13/88 12/20/89 525 C-7806Gorman v. Life Ins. Co. of North America 10/18/89 03/27/91 525 C-9343State Dept. of Highways v. Payne 04/04/90 09/11/91 525 D-0233MBank El Paso v. Sanchez 01/23/91 07/01/92 525
Page 3
007104-001911 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
98-0479 Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v. Functional Restoration Assocs. 10/29/98 04/06/00 525 98-0539 Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon 12/03/98 05/11/00 525 96-1201 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver 03/21/97 08/25/98 522 98-0218 Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel 08/25/98 01/27/00 520 D-2197Richards v. League of United Latin American Citizens 05/06/92 10/06/93 518 99-0273 Williams v. Lara 01/27/00 06/28/01 518 95-1036 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner 02/09/96 07/09/97 516 94-0504 Concord Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co. 05/25/95 10/18/96 512 C-8203Eagle Properties, Ltd. v. Scharbauer 11/01/89 03/27/91 511 C-9294Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell 01/24/90 06/19/91 511 D-3000Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla 01/27/93 06/22/94 511 95-0515 Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank 10/27/95 03/21/97 511 95-1344 Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Fletcher 12/13/96 05/08/98 511 96-0545 Ford Motor Co. v. Miles 10/25/96 03/19/98 510 C-8271Sun Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Artoc Bank & Trust, Ltd. 04/19/89 09/06/90 505 C-7551Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FDP Corp. 10/18/89 03/06/91 504 D-0503LeLeaux v. White 12/12/90 04/29/92 504 00-0037 Monsanto Co. v. Boustany 11/09/00 03/28/02 504 97-0654 American Home Prods. Corp. v. Ramirez 08/15/97 12/31/98 503 97-0655 American Home Prods. Corp. v. Tanner 08/15/97 12/31/98 503 97-1027 Osterberg v. Peca 03/13/98 07/29/99 503 94-0989 Juhl v. Airington 02/16/95 06/28/96 498 94-1233 Tilton v. Marshall 03/02/95 07/12/96 498 C-7743Dow Chem. Co. v. Alfaro 11/16/88 03/28/90 497 C-7744Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 11/16/88 03/28/90 497 C-9438Braden v. Downey 02/07/90 06/19/91 497 D-0477Weirich v. Weirich 02/13/91 06/24/92 497 D-0562Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine 02/06/91 06/17/92 497 98-0617 City of Garland v. The Dallas Morning News 12/03/98 04/13/00 497 C-7910Raborn v. Davis 10/19/88 02/21/90 490 D-2393State v. Morales 09/09/92 01/12/94 490 97-0403 HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel 10/02/97 02/04/99 490 C-6817Summers v. Consolidated Capital Special Trust 02/24/88 06/21/89 483 C-6820Lee v. Key West Towers, Inc. 02/24/88 06/21/89 483 D-1001Caballero v. Central Power & Light Co. 01/22/92 05/19/93 483 D-1183Dreyer v. Greene 07/01/92 10/27/93 483 D-2501Guynes v. Galveston County 07/01/92 10/27/93 483 96-0194 Texas Mexican Ry. v. Bouchet 10/18/96 02/13/98 483 98-1107 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges 11/12/99 03/08/01 482 95-0342 Salinas v. Rafati 03/07/96 06/27/97 477 D-0560Hughston v. Williams Constr. Corp. 01/30/91 05/20/92 476 97-1162 Owens Corning v. Carter 03/13/98 07/01/99 475 97-1163 Owens Corning v. Carroll 03/13/98 07/01/99 475 97-1164 Owens Corning v. Aday 03/13/98 07/01/99 475 97-1165 Owens Corning v. Chandler 03/13/98 07/01/99 475 97-1166 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Deford 03/13/98 07/01/99 475 C-6880State v. Thomas 11/04/87 02/15/89 469 C-7806Gorman v. Life Ins. Co. of North America 10/18/89 01/30/91 469 C-8081Martinez v. Second Injury Fund 01/25/89 05/09/90 469 C-8323Cathey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 10/18/89 01/30/91 469 97-1171 In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo 02/26/98 06/10/99 469 97-0944 Brewerton v. Dalrymple 03/13/98 06/24/99 468 D-1799General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra 02/26/92 06/03/93 463
Page 4
007104-001912 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-8843Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc. 03/07/90 06/12/91 462 D-1893Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal Dist. 06/24/92 09/29/93 462 00-0625 Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Grant 12/21/00 03/28/02 462 94-0856 Vesecky v. Vesecky 12/08/94 03/14/96 462 95-0444 Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp. 02/09/96 05/16/97 462 95-0744 Little v. Smith 10/27/95 01/31/97 462 97-1168 Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp. 05/21/98 08/26/99 462 98-0028 GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce 03/26/98 07/01/99 462 98-0154 Southwestern Ref. Co. v. Bernal 02/04/99 05/11/00 462 98-0408 Mallios v. Baker 10/01/98 01/06/00 462 95-0934 Bohatch v. Butler & Binion 10/18/96 01/22/98 461 96-1092 Pilarcik v. Emmons 01/10/97 04/14/98 459 D-4454State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston 03/30/94 06/29/95 456 95-1254 First USA Management, Inc. v. Esmond 03/07/96 06/06/97 456 C-7482Willard Goolsby, Inc. v. Bright Banc Savings Ass'n 11/30/88 02/28/90 455 D-0201Gifford-Hill & Co. v. Wise County Appraisal Dist. 01/23/91 04/22/92 455 D-0494Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum 04/03/91 07/01/92 455 D-0599In the Interest of S.A.V. & K.E.V. 04/03/91 07/01/92 455 D-2388Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander 09/09/92 12/08/93 455 D-2475Wilson v. Winsett 09/09/92 12/08/93 455 96-0675 Worthy v. Collagen Corp. 11/15/96 02/13/98 455 97-1044 Fleming Foods of Texas, Inc. v. Sharp 09/10/98 12/09/99 455 97-0648 Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez 03/13/98 06/10/99 454 95-1257 United States Government v. Marks 04/12/96 07/09/97 453 95-1273 Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc. 04/12/96 07/09/97 453 D-1090Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. v. Mendez 10/09/91 12/31/92 449 C-8467Williams v. Khalaf 09/06/89 11/28/90 448 99-0406 Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. 11/12/99 02/01/01 447 99-0461 Harris v. Harbour Title Co. 11/12/99 02/01/01 447 98-0130 Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel 04/14/98 07/01/99 443 D-1239American Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Garcia 10/16/91 12/31/92 442 D-2378Timberlawn Psychiatric Hosp. v. Hall 07/01/92 09/16/93 442 94-1237 Cities for Fair Utility Rates v. Public Util. Comm'n 04/13/95 06/28/96 442 C-6957Public Utility Comm'n v. AT&T Communications, Inc. 04/27/88 07/12/89 441 C-7655Coulson v. Lake LBJ Municipal Util. Dist. 09/28/88 12/13/89 441 D-0040National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Dominguez 10/21/92 01/05/94 441 D-1742In re J.W.T. 07/01/92 09/15/93 441 D-2003Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 01/29/92 04/14/93 441 D-3078Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Div. v. Evans02/24/93 05/11/94 441 96-1091 Schlueter v. Schlueter 04/18/97 07/03/98 441 97-1052 Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Auchan USA Inc. 03/26/98 06/10/99 441 98-0679 Tune v. Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety 04/22/99 07/06/00 441 D-4413Texas Dept. of Human Serv. v. Hinds 03/30/94 06/08/95 435 C-9979Caller-Times Pub. Co. v. Triad Communications, Inc. 12/19/90 02/26/92 434 D-0107Phillips v. Phillips 10/03/90 12/11/91 434 D-0619State v. Windham 04/03/91 06/10/92 434 D-0692State v. Dopyera 04/24/91 07/01/92 434 D-2003Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 01/29/92 04/07/93 434 95-1317 Burlington Northern R.R. v. TUCO, Inc. 04/12/96 06/20/97 434 96-1080 MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Texas Util. Elec. Co. 03/19/98 05/27/99 434 C-8576Travis v. City of Mesquite 10/25/89 12/31/90 432 C-8405Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co. 09/20/89 11/21/90 427 00-0337 In re A.D. 02/08/01 04/11/02 427
Page 5
007104-001913 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
96-0249 Provident Amer. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda 10/30/97 12/31/98 427 C-8147Huston v. FDIC 11/01/89 12/31/90 425 94-0110 Republic Ins. Co. v. Stoker 05/11/94 07/07/95 422 C-6968Sesco Prod. Co. v. Atex Pipe & Supply, Inc. 07/12/89 09/06/90 421 D-3058R Communications, Inc. v. Sharp 03/03/93 04/28/94 421 D-4185Parkway Co. v. Woodruff 04/20/94 06/15/95 421 D-4296M.R. Champion, Inc. v. Mizell 01/05/94 03/02/95 421 94-1143 Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Kiefer 02/16/95 04/12/96 421 C-7340Texas Employment Comm'n v. Hughes Drilling Fluids 09/14/88 11/08/89 420 C-8400Haddock v. Arnspiger 04/26/89 06/20/90 420 C-8984Maxus Exploration Co. v. Moran Bros., Inc. 04/25/90 06/19/91 420 C-9328Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady 04/25/90 06/19/91 420 D-0461Jacobs v. Sellers 04/17/91 06/10/92 420 D-0689First Baptist Church v. Bexar County Appraisal Review Bd. 04/17/91 06/10/92 420 D-0816Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi 04/10/91 06/03/92 420 D-1325Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey 05/06/92 06/30/93 420 D-2003Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 01/29/92 03/24/93 420 D-2197Richards v. League of United Latin American Citizens 05/06/92 06/30/93 420 D-2474Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson 11/18/92 01/12/94 420 D-3088Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc. 02/24/93 04/20/94 420 D-3331City of Lancaster v. Chambers 04/21/93 06/15/94 420 00-1003 Gage Van Horn & Assoc., Inc. v. Tatom 04/26/01 06/20/02 420 94-0245 Virginia Indonesia Co.v. Harris County Appraisal Dist. 09/08/94 10/27/95 414 C-7559Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co. 03/22/89 05/09/90 413 C-7720Intercontinental Consolidated Cos. v. University Sav. Ass'n 03/22/89 05/09/90 413 C-8203Eagle Properties, Ltd. v. Scharbauer 11/01/89 12/19/90 413 C-8272FDIC v. Coleman 04/26/89 06/13/90 413 C-9175Vastine v. Bank of Dallas 03/07/90 04/24/91 413 D-0664Lyons v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. 10/21/92 12/08/93 413 D-1244Centex Corp. v. Dalton 09/18/91 11/04/92 413 D-1574First Nat'l Bank v. O'Dell 05/06/92 06/23/93 413 D-1576National Tank Co. v. Brotherton 02/19/92 04/07/93 413 95-0522 San Antonio Idep. Sch. Dist. v. McKinney 10/27/95 12/13/96 413 97-0884 In re Masonite 04/30/98 06/17/99 413 97-0885 In re Masonite 04/30/98 06/17/99 413 99-0231 Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue 10/21/99 12/07/00 413 99-0261 Torrington Co. v. Stutzman 11/04/99 12/21/00 413 D-4374Holloway v. Skinner 03/30/94 05/11/95 407 94-1329 Enron Corp. v. Spring Indep. Sch. Dist. 03/30/95 05/10/96 407 C-6535Rose v. Doctors Hosp. Facilities 11/08/89 12/19/90 406 C-8045Glenn v. Narsutis 12/07/88 01/17/90 406 D-0092Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp. 12/12/90 01/22/92 406 D-0592Texas Educ. Agency v. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. School Dist. 03/27/91 05/06/92 406 D-0671Keetch v. Kroger Co. 04/24/91 06/03/92 406 D-1163Elbaor v. Smith 10/23/91 12/02/92 406 D-2213Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Lee 09/16/92 10/27/93 406 96-1077 Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown 01/31/97 03/13/98 406 97-0812 In reay B Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse 10/30/97 12/10/98 406 97-1135 Bradley v. State ex rel. White 02/26/98 04/08/99 406 98-0617 City of Garland v. The Dallas Morning News 12/03/98 01/13/00 406 94-0041 Peeler v. Hughes & Luce 06/22/94 08/01/95 405 94-0278 Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. 06/22/94 08/01/95 405 95-1291 Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, 05/31/96 Inc. 07/09/97 404
Page 6
007104-001914 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-9256Simpson v. Canales 02/28/90 04/03/91 399 C-9419National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hudson Energy Co. 05/16/90 06/19/91 399 D-0679Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Comm'n 05/19/93 06/22/94 399 D-0946Bandy v. First State Bank 05/08/91 06/10/92 399 D-2195Chambers v. Conaway 09/23/92 10/27/93 399 D-2560National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnson 09/23/92 10/27/93 399 D-2578General Motors Corp. v. Saenz 11/04/92 12/08/93 399 D-3053City of El Paso v. Public Utility Comm'n 05/19/93 06/22/94 399 D-3154State v. Public Util. Comm'n 05/19/93 06/22/94 399 D-3155State v. Public Util. Comm'n 05/19/93 06/22/94 399 95-0983 Lefmark Management Co. v. Old 04/12/96 05/16/97 399 95-1314 Friesenhahn v. Ryan 12/13/96 01/16/98 399 97-1168 Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Valero Energy Corp. 05/21/98 06/24/99 399 98-0478 El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc. 10/15/98 11/18/99 399 98-0582 State v. $217,590 03/11/99 04/13/00 399 99-0366 Utts v. Short 11/04/99 12/07/00 399 96-0995 H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto 06/12/97 07/14/98 397 96-1095 Gross v. Innes 06/12/97 07/14/98 397 D-3465Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Chambers 05/05/93 06/02/94 393 D-4578Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe 05/11/94 06/08/95 393 D-4603St. John v. Pope 05/11/94 06/08/95 393 97-0276 State Bar of Texas v. Jefferson 04/02/97 04/30/98 393 D-0732Westgate, Ltd. v. State 06/05/91 07/01/92 392 D-1235Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 04/08/92 05/05/93 392 00-1015 Board of Adjustment v. Wende 04/26/01 05/23/02 392 00-1127 Texas A&M Univ. v. Lawson 05/24/01 06/20/02 392 98-0907 In re Dallas Morning News, Inc. 11/19/98 12/16/99 392 99-0184 Abrams v. Jones 06/10/99 07/06/00 392 D-3930Union Bankers Ins. Co. v. Shelton 10/27/93 11/22/94 391 96-0001 Perry Homes Contractors, Inc. v. Patterson 02/09/96 03/06/97 391 97-1146 In re N.J.A. 06/05/98 07/01/99 391 97-0430 Ford Motor Co. v. Tyson 06/20/97 07/14/98 389 98-0159 Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Estate of Bilder 08/25/98 09/16/99 387 94-0437 Hull State Bank v. Jones 06/22/95 07/12/96 386 95-0289 Romero v. State 06/22/95 07/12/96 386 97-0423 Smith Barney, Inc. v. Lindsay 06/12/97 07/03/98 386 C-7969Burns v. Thomas 03/08/89 03/28/90 385 C-9317Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin 10/24/90 11/13/91 385 D-0526Shoemake v. Fogel, Ltd. 02/06/91 02/26/92 385 D-2578General Motors Corp. v. Saenz 11/04/92 11/24/93 385 00-0091 Shah v. Moss 11/30/00 12/20/01 385 00-0270 Churchill Forge, Inc. v. Brown 10/26/00 11/15/01 385 94-1065 Lewis & Lambert Metal Contractors, Inc. v. Jackson 12/22/95 01/10/97 385 96-0085 St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor 05/31/96 06/20/97 385 96-0745 Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen 09/19/96 10/09/97 385 96-0839 Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott 09/19/96 10/09/97 385 97-0182 Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Conoco, Inc. 10/02/97 10/22/98 385 98-0363 Chilkewitz v. Hyson 10/01/98 10/21/99 385 98-1053 Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Financial Review Servs., Inc.06/10/99 06/29/00 385 D-4218State Bar of Texas v. Gomez 12/08/93 12/22/94 379 94-0460 Ex parte Swate 04/27/95 05/10/96 379 C-7100Texas Real Estate Commission v. Nagle 02/24/88 03/08/89 378 C-7286Mitchell v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. 06/22/88 07/05/89 378
Page 7
007104-001915 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-8949Evans v. Pollock 10/25/89 11/07/90 378 C-9832McGraw v. Maris 02/06/91 02/19/92 378 D-0629Johnson v. Lynaugh 06/19/91 07/01/92 378 D-0822Attorney General v. Lavan 06/19/91 07/01/92 378 D-0863State v. Malone Serv. Co. 04/17/91 04/29/92 378 D-1820Ex parte Hall 03/25/92 04/07/93 378 D-1847Wornick Co. v. Casas 06/17/92 06/30/93 378 D-1990Smith v. Sewell 04/08/92 04/21/93 378 00-0070 Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State 10/12/00 10/25/01 378 96-1165 Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp. 03/26/98 04/08/99 378 98-1046 National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen 04/22/99 05/04/00 378 97-0827 Douglas v. Delp 03/13/98 03/25/99 377 98-0006 Rodriguez v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co. 06/23/98 07/01/99 373 98-0560 Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc. 06/23/98 07/01/99 373 94-0054 Barber v. Colorado Indep. Sch. Dist. 06/15/94 06/22/95 372 C-8181Ortega v. First RepublicBank 02/22/89 02/28/90 371 C-8350American Nat'l Petroleum Co. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 10/04/89 Corp. 10/10/90 371 C-8669Shumway v. Horizon Credit Corp. 01/10/90 01/16/91 371 D-1364Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc. 10/09/91 10/14/92 371 D-2003Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 01/29/92 02/03/93 371 00-0816 City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Comm'n 08/24/00 08/30/01 371 00-0821 Power Choice, Inc. v. Public Utility Comm'n 08/24/00 08/30/01 371 00-1152 King v. Dallas Fire Ins. Co. 05/24/01 05/30/02 371 00-1256 In re R.J.H. 05/24/01 05/30/02 371 95-1278 Green Int'l, Inc. v. Solis 05/31/96 06/06/97 371 96-0247 Texas Utils. Elec.o. C v. Timmons 06/14/96 06/20/97 371 99-0121 Lozano v. Lozano 03/02/00 03/08/01 371 99-1002 Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson 04/13/00 04/19/01 371 95-0692 Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 07/08/96 07/09/97 366 98-0322 Drilex Systems, Inc. v. Flores 08/25/98 08/26/99 366 94-1198 Anderson Producing, Inc. v. Koch Oil Co. 05/11/95 05/10/96 365 D-0722Bank One v. Moody 04/17/91 04/15/92 364 D-1090Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. v. Mendez 10/09/91 10/07/92 364 D-1339State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S. 07/01/92 06/30/93 364 D-1742In re J.W.T. 07/01/92 06/30/93 364 D-1799General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra 02/26/92 02/24/93 364 00-1309 Continental Cas. Co. v. Downs 06/07/01 06/06/02 364 98-1168 Gulf Ins. Co. v. Burns Motors, Inc. 04/22/99 04/20/00 364 99-0169 Horizon/CMS HealthCare Corp. v. Auld 08/26/99 08/24/00 364 99-0490 Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc. 12/02/99 11/30/00 364 C-9249Bexar County Sheriff's Civil Serv. Commission v. Davis 02/17/90 02/13/91 361 96-1013 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc. 04/18/97 04/14/98 361 97-0449 Mid Century Ins. Co. v. Lindsey 04/14/98 04/08/99 359 D-4202Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez 06/22/95 06/14/96 358 94-0777 General Motors Corp. v. Bloyed 02/16/95 02/09/96 358 95-1286 Smith v. Merrit 03/07/96 02/28/97 358 96-0123 City of Amarillo v. Martin 06/12/97 06/05/98 358 96-1246 Kolster v. City of El Paso 06/12/97 06/05/98 358 C-7687Central Educ. Agency v. George West Indep. Sch. Dist. 10/12/88 10/04/89 357 C-9966Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell 06/27/90 06/19/91 357 D-2481F/R Cattle Co. v. State 12/02/92 11/24/93 357 D-2501Guynes v. Galveston County 07/01/92 06/23/93 357 D-3413Ellis County State Bank v. Keever 06/30/93 06/22/94 357
Page 8
007104-001916 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-4333Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church, Inc. v. Nueces Co. App. 06/02/94 Dist. 05/25/95 357 94-1229 Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Public Utility Comm'n 02/09/96 01/31/97 357 99-0728 Resendez v. Johnson 01/27/00 01/18/01 357 99-1118 City of Harlingen v. Sharboneau 05/25/00 05/17/01 357 97-0592 Temple-Inland Forest Prods. Corp. v. Carter 05/08/98 04/29/99 356 97-1208 Thapar v. Zezulka 07/03/98 06/24/99 356 94-0111 Ricardo N., Inc. v. De Argueta 06/22/94 06/08/95 351 94-0281 Doe v. Boys Club, Inc. 06/22/94 06/08/95 351 94-0433 Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. 06/22/94 06/08/95 351 C-7658Sullivan v. Sullivan 04/05/89 03/21/90 350 C-8149McIlvain v. Jacobs 06/28/89 06/13/90 350 D-0307Federal Land Bank Ass'n v. Sloane 12/19/90 12/04/91 350 D-0570Bryant v. Texas American Bank/Levelland 02/27/91 02/12/92 350 D-0946Bandy v. First State Bank 05/08/91 04/22/92 350 D-1637Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon 10/30/91 10/14/92 350 00-1020 County of Cameron v. Brown 06/07/01 05/23/02 350 00-1206 In re Halliburton Co. 06/14/01 05/30/02 350 01-0008 American Cyanamid Co. v. Geye 06/21/01 06/06/02 350 94-1004 Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green 05/11/95 04/25/96 350 95-1073 Texarkana Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Murdock 05/10/96 04/25/97 350 98-0946 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Del Indus., Inc. 04/22/99 04/06/00 350 99-1114 Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT Davy 04/26/01 04/11/02 350 97-0707 Read v. Scott Fetzer Co. 01/16/98 12/31/98 349 97-0729 KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp.04/14/98 03/25/99 345 D-1893Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal Dist. 06/24/92 06/03/93 344 C-8299Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc. 05/10/89 04/18/90 343 C-9548Reagan v. Vaughn 03/28/90 03/06/91 343 D-0347State v. Cantu 10/03/90 09/11/91 343 D-1213American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co. 01/08/92 12/16/92 343 D-2885Meador-Brady Mgmt. Corp. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Comm'n 12/16/92 11/24/93 343 00-0037 Monsanto Co. v. Boustany 11/09/00 10/18/01 343 00-1114 Texas Mun. League v. Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n 04/26/01 04/04/02 343 95-0052 Benchmark Bank v. Crowder 03/30/95 03/07/96 343 96-0362 Deloitte & Touche v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 06/28/96 06/06/97 343 97-0454 Clark v. Texas Home Health 06/27/97 06/05/98 343 97-1187 Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder 10/01/98 09/09/99 343 99-0667 Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Dewhurst 01/13/00 12/21/00 343 D-3589Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Ins. Co. 06/30/93 06/02/94 337 D-3616Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. Lieck 06/30/93 06/02/94 337 D-4557Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety Officers Ass'n v. Denton 05/11/94 04/13/95 337 95-0827 Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez 01/11/96 12/13/96 337 D-3057Jackson v. Thweatt 04/07/93 03/09/94 336 D-3437Federal Debt Mgmt, Inc. v. Weatherly 04/07/93 03/09/94 336 00-0277 Collins v. Ison-Newsome 01/11/01 12/13/01 336 94-1017 Felts v. Harris County 02/16/95 01/18/96 336 94-1187 State v. Heal 02/16/95 01/18/96 336 95-0444 Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp. 02/09/96 01/10/97 336 95-0939 Edinburg Hosp. Auth. v. Trevino 03/07/96 02/06/97 336 95-1064 Williams Indus., Inc. v. John F. Beasley Constr. Co. 06/14/96 05/16/97 336 95-1160 Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan 06/14/96 05/16/97 336 98-0888 CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen 03/11/99 02/10/00 336 D-4559Thomas v. Oldham 04/20/94 03/16/95 330 94-0207 Gibson v. Spinks 04/20/94 03/16/95 330
Page 9
007104-001917 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-7889Aluminum Co. of America v. Alm 03/08/89 01/31/90 329 C-8363Goeke v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. 10/18/89 09/12/90 329 C-8805Black v. Victoria Lloyds Ins. Co. 10/18/89 09/12/90 329 C-9979Caller-Times Pub. Co. v. Triad Communications, Inc. 12/19/90 11/13/91 329 D-0124DSC Finance Corp. v. Moffitt 10/24/90 09/18/91 329 D-0695Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc. v. O'Neill 01/23/91 12/18/91 329 D-1716Rusk Indus., Inc. v. Hopkins County Tax Appraisal Dist. 02/26/92 01/20/93 329 D-2324Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell 05/20/92 04/14/93 329 96-0442 Dawson-Austin v. Austin 03/21/97 02/13/98 329 96-1224 Brown v. Shwarts 04/18/97 03/13/98 329 98-0857 Hernandez v. Tokai Corp. 10/01/98 08/26/99 329 99-0419 Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc. 01/27/00 12/21/00 329 96-0245 Wadewitz v. Montgomery 08/16/96 07/09/97 327 D-4004City of Beaumont v. Bouillion 03/30/94 02/16/95 323 D-4059Transport Ins. Co. v. Faircloth 05/11/94 03/30/95 323 94-0152 Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno 03/30/94 02/16/95 323 95-0086 City of Murphy v. City of Parker 03/30/95 02/16/96 323 C-9202Beaumont Bank v. Buller 05/16/90 04/03/91 322 D-1472Guillot v. Hix 11/06/91 09/23/92 322 D-1659McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist. 06/03/92 04/21/93 322 D-2324Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell 05/20/92 04/07/93 322 D-3194Jackson v. City of Galveston 02/24/93 01/12/94 322 00-0688 Riyad Bank v. Gailani 12/21/00 11/08/01 322 00-0944 City of Austin v. Travis County Landfill Co. 05/10/01 03/28/02 322 98-0034 Keck, Mahin & Cate v. National Uniono. Fire Ins. C 07/08/99 05/25/00 322 C-9249Bexar County Sheriff's Civil Serv. Commission v. Davis 02/17/90 12/31/90 317 D-3855National Indus. Sand Ass'n v. Gibson 06/15/94 04/27/95 316 D-4353National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Industries, Inc. 04/20/94 03/02/95 316 94-0098 McDaniel v. Yarbrough 04/20/94 03/02/95 316 94-0259 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Estate of Burt 06/15/94 04/27/95 316 94-0262 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Friley 06/15/94 04/27/95 316 95-0003 Wichita County v. Hart 03/30/95 02/09/96 316 D-0080Luckel v. White 12/12/90 10/23/91 315 D-0201Gifford-Hill & Co. v. Wise County Appraisal Dist. 01/23/91 12/04/91 315 D-1272T. O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso 01/22/92 12/02/92 315 D-1804Atascosa County Appraisal Dist. v. Tymrak 04/01/92 02/10/93 315 D-3413Ellis County State Bank v. Keever 06/30/93 05/11/94 315 00-0436 Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth. 04/05/01 02/14/02 315 98-1238 Kerrville State Hosp. v. Hernandez 08/26/99 07/06/00 315 99-0041 Cash America Int'l, Inc. v. Bennett 08/26/99 07/06/00 315 99-0108 Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Able 08/26/99 07/06/00 315 99-0141 Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Gonzalez 08/26/99 07/06/00 315 99-0981 Levine v. Bayne, Snell & Krause, Ltd. 03/23/00 02/01/01 315 96-0994 Shepherd v. Ledford 03/21/97 01/29/98 314 96-1243 Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Fuentes 03/21/97 01/29/98 314 97-0278 Willy v. Coastal States Management Co. 09/04/97 07/14/98 313 98-0184 Burrow v. Arce 08/25/98 07/01/99 310 98-0218 Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel 08/25/98 07/01/99 310 98-0322 Drilex Systems, Inc. v. Flores 08/25/98 07/01/99 310 C-7246Casso v. Brand 07/06/88 05/10/89 308 C-7774Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany 12/20/89 10/24/90 308 C-7824Tom L. Scott, Inc. v. McIlhany 12/20/89 10/24/90 308 C-9274Caulley v. Caulley 06/20/90 04/24/91 308
Page 10
007104-001918 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-9731Public Utility Comm'n v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 05/30/90 04/03/91 308 C-9938T. F. Stone-Liberty Land Assoc. v. FSLIC 11/14/90 09/18/91 308 D-0190Havner v. -Z E Mart Stores, Inc. 04/24/91 02/26/92 308 D-0791George A. Fuller Co. v. Carpet Services, Inc. 03/27/91 01/29/92 308 D-3639Sorokolit v. Rhodes 06/16/93 04/20/94 308 00-0547 American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge 01/11/01 11/15/01 308 00-0581 E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pecan Valley Nut Co. 12/21/00 10/25/01 308 94-1124 Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd. 02/09/96 12/13/96 308 98-0132 Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson 05/06/99 03/09/00 308 98-0578 Brainard v. State 12/03/98 10/07/99 308 98-0645 State v. Vitapro Foods, Inc. 02/04/99 12/09/99 308 94-0152 Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno 03/30/94 01/30/95 306 96-0584 Praesel v. Johnson 06/12/97 04/14/98 306 C-8131Schlobohm v. Schapiro 04/19/89 02/17/90 304 C-6535Rose v. Doctors Hosp. Facilities 11/08/89 09/06/90 302 D-1939Texas Dept. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Petty 03/04/92 12/31/92 302 95-0316 Memorial Hosp. v. McCown 09/14/95 07/12/96 302 95-0340 Brownwood Regional Med. Ctr. v. McCown 09/14/95 07/12/96 302 95-0596 Kincaid v. Brooks 09/14/95 07/12/96 302 97-0171 Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston 09/04/97 07/03/98 302 97-0237 Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc. 09/04/97 07/03/98 302 C-8285Lee v. City of Houston 06/27/90 04/24/91 301 D-0119City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals 11/14/90 09/11/91 301 D-0986Amberboy v. Societe de Banque Privee 06/19/91 04/15/92 301 D-2159Dallas Merchant's & Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas 06/10/92 04/07/93 301 D-2377State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Reed 12/02/92 09/29/93 301 00-0061 Brown v. Todd 08/24/00 06/21/01 301 00-1145 Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. Sierra Club 04/26/01 02/21/02 301 96-1078 Brown v. Bank of Galveston 04/18/97 02/13/98 301 99-0204 Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Petta 06/15/00 04/12/01 301 97-0961 Gibbs v. Jackson 06/05/98 04/01/99 300 D-4270Texas Workers' Compensation Comm'n v. Garcia 04/20/94 02/09/95 295 D-4598City of Brownsville v. Alvarado 06/08/94 03/30/95 295 D-4600Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis 09/15/94 07/07/95 295 C-7275Garza v. Maverick Market, Inc. 05/18/88 03/08/89 294 C-9567Ex parte Brister 02/28/90 12/19/90 294 D-0537Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co. 02/20/91 12/11/91 294 D-1208University of Texas v. York 04/14/93 02/02/94 294 D-2809Ex parte Tucci 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2819Ex parte Terry 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2820Ex parte Mahoney 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2821Ex parte Wright 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2822Ex parte Benham 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2823Ex parte Slovenic 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2824Ex parte Jewitt 09/09/92 06/30/93 294 D-2938Piotrowski v. Minns 02/17/93 12/08/93 294 96-0346 Goode v. Shoukfeh 06/28/96 04/18/97 294 99-0472 In re O.G.M. 08/26/99 06/15/00 294 97-0028 Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley 06/27/97 04/14/98 291 97-0454 Clark v. Texas Home Health 06/27/97 04/14/98 291 94-0495 Ex parte Chambers 06/15/94 03/30/95 288 95-0382 Firestone Steel Products Co. v. Barajas 09/14/95 06/28/96 288 C-7559Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co. 03/22/89 01/03/90 287
Page 11
007104-001919 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-7720Intercontinental Consolidated Cos. v. University Sav. Ass'n 03/22/89 01/03/90 287 C-8660Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Center, Ltd. 09/06/89 06/20/90 287 C-8711Payne & Keller, Inc. v. P.P.G. Indus., Inc. 09/06/89 06/20/90 287 C-9395Crain v. San Jacinto Sav. Ass'n 03/28/90 01/09/91 287 D-0022Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch 11/28/90 09/11/91 287 D-0355Balderama v. Western Cas. Life Ins. Co. 01/09/91 10/23/91 287 D-0566Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Caldwell 01/23/91 11/06/91 287 D-2124Page Petroleum, Inc. v. Dresser Indus., Inc. 06/24/92 04/07/93 287 D-3135Russell v. Russell 02/10/93 11/24/93 287 D-3148Weaber v. Lorensen 02/10/93 11/24/93 287 D-3293Harris County v. Dillard 03/24/93 01/05/94 287 D-4447Bailey v. Vanscot Concrete Co. 06/02/94 03/16/95 287 00-0816 City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Comm'n 08/24/00 06/07/01 287 00-0821 Power Choice, Inc. v. Public Utility Comm'n 08/24/00 06/07/01 287 98-0872 Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp. 09/16/99 06/29/00 287 98-0883 Weber Energy Corp. v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 09/16/99 06/29/00 287 98-1046 National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen 04/22/99 02/03/00 287 99-0121 Lozano v. Lozano 03/02/00 12/14/00 287 D-3684Sysco Food Serv., Inc. v. Trapnell 09/10/93 06/22/94 285 95-0341 Barcelo v. Elliott 08/01/95 05/10/96 283 95-0385 Pharo v. Chambers County 08/01/95 05/10/96 283 D-1903Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc. 03/25/92 12/31/92 281 D-4448Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd. 06/22/94 03/30/95 281 94-0377 French v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 06/22/94 03/30/95 281 94-1057 Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis 07/09/97 04/16/98 281 94-1206 Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd. 01/11/96 10/18/96 281 95-0474 Irving Healthcare Sys. v. Brooks 10/05/95 07/12/96 281 C-7446Chenault v. Bexar County Commissioners Court 07/13/88 04/19/89 280 C-7798Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments 12/14/88 09/20/89 280 C-9682Anderson v. City of Seven Points 05/16/90 02/20/91 280 D-0666Aduddell v. Parkhill 02/13/91 11/20/91 280 00-1220 Texas State Bank v. Amaro 06/21/01 03/28/02 280 94-0465 University of Texas Medical Sch. v. Than 09/15/94 06/22/95 280 97-0976 Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson 03/26/98 12/31/98 280 98-1014 City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich 09/23/99 06/29/00 280 99-0320 American Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Martin 12/02/99 09/07/00 280 99-0859 Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis 03/02/00 12/07/00 280 C-9052Cherokee Water Co. v. Gregg County Appraisal Dist. 03/28/90 12/31/90 278 D-1418Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals 03/13/92 12/16/92 278 D-4558R.K. v. Ramirez 02/02/94 11/03/94 274 94-0356 Mid-American Indem. Ins. Co. v. King 10/06/94 07/07/95 274 95-0521 Buys v. Buys 09/14/95 06/14/96 274 96-0684 Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R. 06/12/97 03/13/98 274 97-0231 Childs v. Haussecker 10/02/97 07/03/98 274 97-0280 Trevino v. Ortega 09/04/97 06/05/98 274 97-0324 Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Martinez 10/02/97 07/03/98 274 97-0404 Appraisal Review Bd. of Galveston County v. Tex-Air Helicopter, 09/04/97Inc. 06/05/98 274 C-7687Central Educ. Agency v. George West Indep. Sch. Dist. 10/12/88 07/12/89 273 C-9064Rhodes v. Cahill 01/10/90 10/10/90 273 C-9845Tyra v. City of Houston 03/20/91 12/18/91 273 D-1588Lohec v. Galveston County Commissioners Court 02/19/92 11/18/92 273 D-3755State v. Biggar 06/30/93 03/30/94 273 00-0041 Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood 11/30/00 08/30/01 273
Page 12
007104-001920 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
00-0338 Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice v. Miller 09/21/00 06/21/01 273 95-1273 Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc. 04/12/96 01/10/97 273 96-0387 Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. 05/16/97 02/13/98 273 97-1044 Fleming Foods of Texas, Inc. v. Sharp 09/10/98 06/10/99 273 98-1126 Badouh v. Badouh 04/29/99 01/27/00 273 99-1268 In re Canales 05/04/00 02/01/01 273 99-1307 In re County of Jim Wells 05/04/00 02/01/01 273 97-0926 Kelley-Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co. 02/13/98 11/12/98 272 98-0198 In re C.O.S. 07/03/98 04/01/99 272 98-0308 In re D.I.B. 07/03/98 04/01/99 272 96-1039 Insurance Co. of N. Amer. v. Morris 10/16/97 07/14/98 271 D-2775Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats 12/16/92 09/10/93 268 94-0049 Gonzalez v. Avalos 06/08/94 03/02/95 267 C-8181Ortega v. First RepublicBank 02/22/89 11/15/89 266 C-9548Reagan v. Vaughn 03/28/90 12/19/90 266 D-0370Tubelite v. Risica & Sons, Inc. 03/20/91 12/11/91 266 D-0584Lear Siegler Inc. v. Perez 02/27/91 11/20/91 266 D-0938Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church 10/09/91 07/01/92 266 D-1854Taylor v. Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co. 03/25/92 12/16/92 266 D-2324Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell 05/20/92 02/10/93 266 00-0523 Reeder v. Daniel 02/15/01 11/08/01 266 00-0936 TXU Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n 12/07/00 08/30/01 266 94-0503 Global Serv., Inc. v. Bianchi 10/06/94 06/29/95 266 96-0092 Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Aiello 05/10/96 01/31/97 266 97-0654 American Home Prods. Corp. v. Ramirez 08/15/97 05/08/98 266 97-0655 American Home Prods. Corp. v. Tanner 08/15/97 05/08/98 266 98-1080 University of Houston v. Clark 09/23/99 06/15/00 266 99-0326 Erner v. Thomas 09/23/99 06/15/00 266 99-0366 Utts v. Short 06/07/01 02/28/02 266 D-3464Richards v. Neuhaus 06/03/93 02/23/94 265 95-1270 Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards 03/21/97 12/11/97 265 96-0898 Farmers Texas County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin 02/21/97 11/13/97 265 97-0228 Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Benton 10/23/97 07/14/98 264 94-1024 A&T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp 11/03/94 07/21/95 260 97-0475 Timberwalk Apts. Ptnr, Inc. v. Cain 10/16/97 07/03/98 260 97-0573 Perry v. Nash 10/16/97 07/03/98 260 C-7514McKinney v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. 09/21/88 06/07/89 259 C-7810Adams v. Petrade Int'l, Inc. 07/12/89 03/28/90 259 C-8177Robinson v. Central Texas MHMR Center 03/08/89 11/22/89 259 C-9274Caulley v. Caulley 06/20/90 03/06/91 259 C-9504BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard 03/07/90 11/21/90 259 D-0353Williams v. Patton 02/13/91 10/30/91 259 D-0678Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins 03/06/91 11/20/91 259 D-1391Guillory v. Port of Houston Auth. 05/06/92 01/20/93 259 D-1558Davenport v. Garcia 10/02/91 06/17/92 259 D-1867Remington Arms Co. v. Canales 01/08/92 09/23/92 259 D-3258State v. Kitchen 03/24/93 12/08/93 259 00-0156 Public Util. Comm'n v. City Public Ser. Bd. 10/12/00 06/28/01 259 00-0948 Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Garza 05/10/01 01/24/02 259 01-0036 Travis County v. Pelzel & Assocs., Inc. 08/23/01 05/09/02 259 01-0231 Union Pacific R.R. v. Williams 09/20/01 06/06/02 259 01-0232 Lenz v. Lenz 09/20/01 06/06/02 259 94-1187 State v. Heal 02/16/95 11/02/95 259
Page 13
007104-001921 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
95-0084 Estes v. Akins 10/27/95 07/12/96 259 97-0268 Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson 09/04/97 05/21/98 259 98-0363 Chilkewitz v. Hyson 10/01/98 06/17/99 259 98-0446 DeWitt County Elec. Cooperative, Inc. v. Parks 10/15/98 07/01/99 259 98-1031 Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip. Co. 04/22/99 01/06/00 259 98-1138 Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth 08/26/99 05/11/00 259 99-0557 Underkofler v. Vanasek 06/15/00 03/01/01 259 99-0670 Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Barlow 08/24/00 05/10/01 259 99-1100 Gilbert v. El Paso Co. Hosp. Dist. 05/04/00 01/18/01 259 99-1165 Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin 06/15/00 03/01/01 259 96-1026 Verbugt v. Dorner 03/21/97 12/04/97 258 95-0500 American Airlines, Inc. v. Shupe 08/01/95 04/12/96 255 96-0555 Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz 06/19/96 02/28/97 254 98-0247 Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc. 08/25/98 05/06/99 254 94-0161 Duncan v. Board of Disciplinary Appeals 06/08/94 02/16/95 253 94-0162 In re Duncan 06/08/94 02/16/95 253 96-0101 Griffin Indus. Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 03/07/96 11/15/96 253 C-7655Coulson v. Lake LBJ Municipal Util. Dist. 09/28/88 06/07/89 252 C-8285Lee v. City of Houston 06/27/90 03/06/91 252 C-8789North Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Willacy County Appraisal Dist. 06/13/90 02/20/91 252 C-9525Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. Hidalgo County Appraisal Dist. 06/13/90 02/20/91 252 C-9992Allied General Agency, Inc. v. Moody 10/21/92 06/30/93 252 D-0621First Title Co. v. Garrett 09/30/92 06/09/93 252 D-1451Upshaw v. Trinity Cos. 01/22/92 09/30/92 252 00-0710 McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cortez 12/21/00 08/30/01 252 94-0579 Padilla v. LaFrance 09/15/94 05/25/95 252 98-0442 General Motors Corp. v. Sanchez 10/22/98 07/01/99 252 98-0724 In re Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc. 08/06/98 04/15/99 252 98-1018 Huckabee v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. 08/26/99 05/04/00 252 99-1056 American Home Prods. Corp. v. Clark 04/13/00 12/21/00 252 97-0868 WFAA -TV, Inc. v. McLemore 01/16/98 09/24/98 251 95-0434 Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co. 09/14/95 05/18/96 247 97-0970 McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F. E. Appling Interests 08/25/98 04/29/99 247 D-4411Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. Rickey 02/02/94 10/06/94 246 D-4505Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. 04/20/94 12/22/94 246 95-0021 Texas Water Comm'n v. Brushy Creek Municipal Util. Dist. 06/08/95 02/09/96 246 96-1154 Quick v. City of Austin 09/04/97 05/08/98 246 97-0630 Van Horn v. Chambers 10/30/97 07/03/98 246 C-7593Stracener v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 01/11/89 09/13/89 245 C-7615Gaulding v. Celotex Corp. 10/05/88 06/07/89 245 C-7874United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Hestilow 01/11/89 09/13/89 245 C-9104Lewelling v. Lewelling 01/17/90 09/19/90 245 C-9555Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips 04/18/90 12/19/90 245 D-0805Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Cockrell 07/01/92 03/03/93 245 D-1288Heggen v. Pemelton 10/23/91 06/24/92 245 D-1439Lee v. Downey 04/15/92 12/16/92 245 D-2476Stegall v. Oadra 10/07/92 06/09/93 245 D-3889Great Am. Ins. Co. v. North un. Austin Util. M Dist. No. 1 10/13/94 06/15/95 245 00-1261 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece 10/18/01 06/20/02 245 94-0541 Weiner v. Wasson 10/06/94 06/08/95 245 94-1004 Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green 05/11/95 01/11/96 245 95-1257 United States Government v. Marks 04/12/96 12/13/96 245 97-1205 Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Lubbock County Hosp. Dist. 04/30/98 12/31/98 245
Page 14
007104-001922 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
98-0487 NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Rennels 10/01/98 06/03/99 245 98-0601 Phi Delta Theta Co. v. Moore 10/29/98 07/01/99 245 98-0661 Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy 10/29/98 07/01/99 245 99-0966 Bradford v. Vento 08/24/00 04/26/01 245 94-1338 Smith v. Clary Corp. 07/07/95 03/07/96 244 96-1208 Coastal Corp. v. Garza 11/13/97 07/14/98 243 D-2369Republic Ins. Co. v. Davis 10/07/92 06/03/93 239 D-3262Light v. Centel Cellular Co. 10/06/93 06/02/94 239 D-4612Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall 02/09/94 10/06/94 239 95-0120 National Ass'n of Indep. Insurers v. Texas Dept. of Insurance11/16/95 07/12/96 239 C-7698Loftin v. Martin 09/28/88 05/24/89 238 C-7945Ex parte Adell 09/21/88 05/17/89 238 C-7973McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. 02/22/89 10/18/89 238 C-8786Williams v. Glash 09/06/89 05/02/90 238 D-3930Union Bankers Ins. Co. v. Shelton 10/27/93 06/22/94 238 00-0173 Coastal Liquids Transp. v. Harris County 09/14/00 05/10/01 238 94-0514 Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Segura 11/03/94 06/29/95 238 94-0567 Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley 10/13/94 06/08/95 238 94-0641 Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews 09/15/94 05/11/95 238 94-0670 Crowson v. Wakeham 09/15/94 05/11/95 238 99-1159 Harris County Bail Bond Bd. v. Blackwood 07/06/00 03/01/01 238 96-0044 Williams v. Olivo 11/15/96 07/09/97 236 98-0219 Atascosa County v. Atascosa County Appraisal Dist. 08/25/98 04/15/99 233 95-0017 Railroad Comm'n v. Torch Operating Co. 05/04/95 12/22/95 232 97-0684 Scherer v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 10/16/97 06/05/98 232 C-8889Coalition of Cities v. Third Court of Appeals 09/06/89 04/25/90 231 C-8890Cities of Bridge City v. Third Court of Appeals 09/06/89 04/25/90 231 C-8949Evans v. Pollock 10/25/89 06/13/90 231 C-9287Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Comm'n 01/24/90 09/12/90 231 C-9611Orange County v. Ware 06/06/90 01/23/91 231 D-0713Texas Water Comm'n v. Coalition Advocating a Safe Environment04/03/91 11/20/91 231 D-1320Religious of the Sacred Heart v. City of Houston 01/29/92 09/16/92 231 D-3099American Petrofina, Inc. v. Allen 06/16/93 02/02/94 231 00-0022 Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. Estate of Wells 10/26/00 06/14/01 231 00-0722 In re American Homestar, Inc. 10/19/00 06/07/01 231 00-0829 Yzaguirre v. KCS Resources, Inc. 01/11/01 08/30/01 231 94-0619 Green Int'l, Inc. v. State 03/30/95 11/16/95 231 95-0168 Broders v. Heise 10/27/95 06/14/96 231 98-0592 Surgitek v. Abel 11/12/98 07/01/99 231 D-3795Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds 09/10/93 04/28/94 230 96-0100 ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin 07/08/96 02/21/97 228 C-9185Don Docksteader Motors, Ltd. v. Patal Enterprises, Ltd. 01/24/90 09/06/90 225 D-4248Kassen v. Hatley 03/30/94 11/10/94 225 D-4527Fisk Electric Co. v. Constructors & Assoc., Inc. 04/20/94 12/01/94 225 C-7616Johnson v. Swain 02/22/89 10/04/89 224 C-7815Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals 11/16/88 06/28/89 224 C-8191Philipp Brothers, Inc. v. Oil Country Specialists, Ltd. 06/07/89 01/17/90 224 C-8448Nelson v. Neal 06/28/89 02/07/90 224 C-9060Koslow's v. Mackie 02/28/90 10/10/90 224 C-9469Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. 06/30/93 02/09/94 224 C-9671Cassidy v. Northwest Tech Center Assoc., Ltd. 06/27/90 02/06/91 224 C-9822State v. Lowry 06/27/90 02/06/91 224 D-0092Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp. 12/12/90 07/24/91 224
Page 15
007104-001923 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-1539Koepp v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. 11/20/91 07/01/92 224 D-1750Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps 04/08/92 11/18/92 224 D-2100Valdez v. Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. 04/22/92 12/02/92 224 D-2168Grounds v. Tolar Indep. Sch. Dist. 11/11/92 06/23/93 224 01-0168 Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahr 10/11/01 05/23/02 224 94-0055 Randall's Food Markets, Inc. v. Johnson 06/02/94 01/12/95 224 94-0573 Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler 10/13/94 05/25/95 224 99-0074 Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner 08/26/99 04/06/00 224 99-0976 In re Lock 11/09/00 06/21/01 224 95-0401 National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Godbey 10/27/95 06/06/96 223 96-0745 Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen 09/19/96 04/30/97 223 96-0839 Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott 09/19/96 04/30/97 223 97-0323 City of Odessa v. Barton 09/04/97 04/14/98 222 97-0582 In re Meador 09/04/97 04/14/98 222 97-0889 Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston 11/13/97 06/23/98 222 D-4095State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons 07/09/97 02/13/98 219 95-0897 Johnson County Sheriff's Posse, Inc. v. Endsley 11/22/95 06/28/96 219 97-0661 Malone v. Foster 10/30/97 06/05/98 218 98-0841 In re Missouri Pacific R.R. 11/25/98 07/01/99 218 98-0842 In re Missouri Pacific R.R. 11/25/98 07/01/99 218 98-0843 In re Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 11/25/98 07/01/99 218 C-7532Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 07/13/88 02/15/89 217 C-8182Peek v. Equipment Serv. Co. 04/05/89 11/08/89 217 C-8426Peek v. Neeswig 04/05/89 11/08/89 217 C-8819Jackson v. S.P. Leasing Corp. 10/18/89 05/23/90 217 D-1937Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 04/08/92 11/11/92 217 D-1971Palmer v. The Coble Wall Trust Co. 03/25/92 10/28/92 217 D-2997Mafrige v. Ross 03/24/93 10/27/93 217 D-3186Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna 04/14/93 11/17/93 217 D-4340K.D.F. v. Rex 11/17/93 06/22/94 217 00-0142 Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc. 08/24/00 03/29/01 217 00-0201 Lambert v. Affiliated Foods, Inc. 08/24/00 03/29/01 217 00-1076 Haase v. Glazner 04/26/01 11/29/01 217 94-1323 Leitch v. Hornsby 05/10/96 12/13/96 217 95-0943 El Paso Elec. Co. v. Texas Dept. of Insurance 05/10/96 12/13/96 217 95-1255 Trammell Crow Co. v. Harkinson 08/16/96 03/21/97 217 98-0253 National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones 10/01/98 05/06/99 217 98-0753 Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. 10/07/99 05/11/00 217 99-1291 Meritor Automotive, Inc. v. Ruan Leasing Co. 08/24/00 03/29/01 217 D-4128Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig 09/29/93 04/28/94 211 D-4160Catalina v. Blasdel 11/03/93 06/02/94 211 95-0717 Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. W. V. Grant Evangelistic Ass'n,11/16/95 Inc. 06/14/96 211 95-0933 CSR Ltd. v. Link 11/16/95 06/14/96 211 97-0309 Clint Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Cash Investments, Inc. 11/06/97 06/05/98 211 97-1093 Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. 12/04/97 07/03/98 211 C-7524State v. Bachynsky 10/05/88 05/03/89 210 C-7728Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp. 09/21/88 04/19/89 210 C-8140Brown-Forman Corp. v. Brune 03/22/89 10/18/89 210 C-8895Thompson v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 10/11/89 05/09/90 210 C-9411Tarrant County Hosp. Dist. v. Armendarez 09/12/90 04/10/91 210 D-0270Nance v. Resolution Trust Corp. 11/07/90 06/05/91 210 D-0853Rhea v. Williams 04/17/91 11/13/91 210 D-1235Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 04/08/92 11/04/92 210
Page 16
007104-001924 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-1589Taub v. City of Deer Park 11/24/93 06/22/94 210 D-3310National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Valdez 03/03/93 09/29/93 210 D-3492National Union Fire Ins. Co.v. Ninth Court of Appeals 03/31/93 10/27/93 210 00-0070 Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State 10/12/00 05/10/01 210 00-1093 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Coates Energy Trusts 08/23/01 03/21/02 210 01-0150 Guadalupe-Blanco River Auth. v. Kraft 10/11/01 05/09/02 210 96-0690 Board of Trustees of Bastrop Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Toungate 03/27/97 10/23/97 210 97-1140 Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 12/03/98 07/01/99 210 99-1015 General Servs. Comm'n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co. 07/06/00 02/01/01 210 99-1070 Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc. 07/06/00 02/01/01 210 98-0396 Stephens v. American Home Assurance Co. 05/08/98 12/03/98 209 C-9611Orange County v. Ware 06/06/90 12/31/90 208 95-1077 United Blood Servs. v. Longoria 07/08/96 01/31/97 207 94-0734 Reinhart v. Young 11/22/94 06/15/95 205 95-0710 Central Appraisal Dist. v. Lall 11/22/95 06/14/96 205 D-2387Guzman v. Guzman 06/10/92 12/31/92 204 97-0573 Perry v. Nash 10/16/97 05/08/98 204 C-8467Williams v. Khalaf 09/06/89 03/28/90 203 C-8893Evans v. Illinois Employers Ins. 11/08/89 05/30/90 203 D-0830Tovar v. Spector 03/06/91 09/25/91 203 D-1764Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals 05/27/92 12/16/92 203 D-3363Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano 11/24/93 06/15/94 203 D-3404Aluminum Co. of America v. Bullock 06/23/93 01/12/94 203 D-3543Benson v. Ford Motor Co. 06/02/94 12/22/94 203 D-3544Monsanto Co. v.ornerstones C Mun. Util. Dist. 05/05/93 11/24/93 203 D-3826Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc. 11/24/93 06/15/94 203 D-4440Huckabay v. Irving Healthcare Authority 06/02/94 12/22/94 203 00-1146 State v. Bristol Hotel Asset Co. 05/10/01 11/29/01 203 94-0566 Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Wilmer 12/08/94 06/29/95 203 94-0859 Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat 12/01/94 06/22/95 203 95-0159 Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne 12/22/95 07/12/96 203 95-0954 CMMC v. Salinas 12/22/95 07/12/96 203 97-0483 Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 09/04/97 03/26/98 203 98-0333 Gunn Infiniti, Inc. v. O'Byrne 12/03/98 06/24/99 203 98-0806 In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc. 12/03/98 06/24/99 203 98-1131 In re Union Pacific R.R. 12/10/98 07/01/99 203 99-1227 Grapevine Excavation Inc. v. Maryland Lloyds 12/16/99 07/06/00 203 D-0962Travel Masters, Inc. v. Star Tours, Inc. 05/30/91 12/18/91 202 C-9468Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. 02/21/90 09/06/90 197 C-7514McKinney v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. 09/21/88 04/05/89 196 C-9223McGill v. Johnson 05/16/90 11/28/90 196 C-9937Railroad Comm'n v. Pend Oreille Oil & Gas Co. 11/21/90 06/05/91 196 D-0091Harris County District Attorney v. J.T.S. 10/10/90 04/24/91 196 D-0811Jupiter Oil Co. v. Snow 04/10/91 10/23/91 196 D-1376Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool 04/29/92 11/11/92 196 D-1425Camacho v. Samaniego 10/23/91 05/06/92 196 D-1558Davenport v. Garcia 10/02/91 04/15/92 196 D-2746Rodriguez v. Rodriguez 11/04/92 05/19/93 196 D-2779Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Specia 09/09/92 03/24/93 196 D-3633Dodd v. Meno 06/30/93 01/12/94 196 D-3782Commonwealth Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. Cullen/Frost Bank 10/27/93 05/11/94 196 01-0406 Lubbock County v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds 12/06/01 06/20/02 196 94-0792 Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye 12/01/94 06/15/95 196
Page 17
007104-001925 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
94-0843 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson 12/01/94 06/15/95 196 94-1176 Park Place Hosp. v. Milo 04/20/95 11/02/95 196 95-0885 Medina v. Herrera 10/27/95 05/10/96 196 98-0216 Wilson v. Andrews 06/10/99 12/23/99 196 98-0520 Baker Hughes, Inc. v. KECO R. & D., Inc. 03/25/99 10/07/99 196 98-1141 In re Birdwell 11/04/99 05/18/00 196 99-1042 Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies 08/24/00 03/08/01 196 97-0182 Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Conoco, Inc. 10/02/97 04/14/98 194 96-0148 St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dal-Worth Tak Co. 02/13/98 08/25/98 193 D-2185Tijerina v. City of Tyler 06/24/92 12/31/92 190 96-0945 Santa Rosa Health Care Corp. v. Garcia 09/04/97 03/13/98 190 97-0630 Van Horn v. Chambers 10/30/97 05/08/98 190 C-7635Lyles v. Roberts 10/26/88 05/03/89 189 C-7691Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hospital 09/21/88 03/29/89 189 C-7972Clark v. Trailways, Inc. 11/23/88 05/31/89 189 C-8462Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 10/11/89 04/18/90 189 C-9063Roberts v. First State Bank 12/13/89 06/20/90 189 C-9216Matthews Constr. Co. v. Rosen 03/07/90 09/12/90 189 D-1594Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. Seven Investment Co. 12/04/91 06/10/92 189 D-1678Geo Viking, Inc. v. Tex-Lee Operating Co. 04/22/92 10/28/92 189 D-1737Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. Las Colinas Corp. 12/04/91 06/10/92 189 D-4097Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones 12/08/93 06/15/94 189 00-0548 In re FirstMerit Bank 12/07/00 06/14/01 189 01-0086 City of Austin v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. 11/29/01 06/06/02 189 94-0838 Bonham State Bank v. Beadle 12/01/94 06/08/95 189 98-1012 Kroger Co. v. Keng 11/04/99 05/11/00 189 99-0026 In re MacDonald 09/23/99 03/30/00 189 99-1117 San Antonio Area Foundation v. Lang 05/04/00 11/09/00 189 97-0373 In re Long 07/03/98 01/07/99 188 94-0390 Bradbury v. Central Power & Light Co. 06/22/94 12/22/94 183 C-9981Ex parte Pryor 06/20/90 12/19/90 182 C-9983Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. McGuire 10/31/90 05/01/91 182 D-0092Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp. 12/12/90 06/12/91 182 D-0333Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc. 12/19/90 06/19/91 182 D-0400Murdock v. Murdock 12/19/90 06/19/91 182 D-0467Mower v. Boyer 12/19/90 06/19/91 182 D-0547Schultz v. Fifth Court of Appeals 12/12/90 06/12/91 182 D-1093Briones v. Solomon 11/06/91 05/06/92 182 00-0250 Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf 10/12/00 04/12/01 182 00-0513 Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. 12/07/00 06/07/01 182 00-0936 TXU Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n 12/07/00 06/07/01 182 94-0773 Texas Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Gaither09/15/94 03/16/95 182 97-1011 Garcia v. Martinez 10/08/98 04/08/99 182 98-0429 Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Andrade 04/22/99 10/21/99 182 99-0616 In re George 01/06/00 07/06/00 182 99-0648 In re Epic Holdings, Inc. 01/06/00 07/06/00 182 D-2680Kramer v. Lewisville Memorial Hosp. 12/31/92 06/30/93 181 95-0515 Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank 10/27/95 04/25/96 181 95-1195 City of Sherman v. Henry 01/11/96 07/08/96 179 D-0272Beck v. Beck 12/05/90 05/30/91 176 D-2803Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Haupt,12/09/92 Inc. 06/03/93 176 95-0773 Kerrville State Hosp. v. Clark 11/16/95 05/10/96 176 97-0161 Caldwell v. Barnes 11/13/97 05/08/98 176
Page 18
007104-001926 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-7248Carr v. Brasher 11/16/88 05/10/89 175 C-7642Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp. 03/29/89 09/20/89 175 C-9302Union Carbide Corp. v. Moye 05/30/90 11/21/90 175 C-9515Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper 06/20/90 12/12/90 175 D-0542Texas Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Eighth Court of Appeals 12/12/90 06/05/91 175 D-1439Lee v. Downey 04/15/92 10/07/92 175 D-1571O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals 03/25/92 09/16/92 175 D-2057Gibson v. Methodist Hospital 06/24/92 12/16/92 175 D-2313Ector County v. Stringer 06/24/92 12/16/92 175 D-2316Ector County v. Hill 06/24/92 12/16/92 175 D-2761De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., Inc. 10/14/92 04/07/93 175 D-3411Little v. X-Pert Corp. 06/16/93 12/08/93 175 D-3811State Bar of Texas v. Humphreys 10/06/93 03/30/94 175 D-3982Diamond Shamrock Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Nueces County Appraisal 10/27/93 Dist.04/20/94 175 D-4093First Bank v. Tony's Tortilla Factory, Inc. 11/17/93 05/11/94 175 00-0229 Long Distance Int'l, Inc v. Telefonos de Mexico 12/21/00 06/14/01 175 00-0292 Subaru of Amer., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc. 12/07/00 05/31/01 175 00-0643 M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak 12/21/00 06/14/01 175 94-0634 Harwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 10/06/94 03/30/95 175 94-1053 Universal Serv. Co. v. Ung 12/22/94 06/15/95 175 98-0125 In re Continental General Tire, Inc. 05/21/98 11/12/98 175 98-0800 Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Kidd 01/07/99 07/01/99 175 98-1024 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gerlich 01/07/99 07/01/99 175 99-0755 Texas Health Enter., Inc. v. Geisler 08/24/00 02/15/01 175 99-1011 Payne v. Galen Hosp. Corp. 03/02/00 08/24/00 175 C-9064Rhodes v. Cahill 01/10/90 07/03/90 174 D-0639Borders v. Hartman 12/31/90 06/19/91 170 C-8717Heaton v. Fulton 03/21/90 09/06/90 169 D-4473Costello v. Smith 04/20/94 10/06/94 169 C-7734Snadon v. Joe T. Garcia's Enterprises, Inc. 01/11/89 06/28/89 168 C-8147Huston v. FDIC 11/01/89 04/18/90 168 C-8660Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Center, Ltd. 09/06/89 02/21/90 168 D-0220Perez v. Briercroft Serv. Corp. 11/21/90 05/08/91 168 D-2082Barr v. Sunbelt Federal Savings 04/08/92 09/23/92 168 D-2100Valdez v. Diamond Shamrock Refining & Marketing Co. 04/22/92 10/07/92 168 D-2367Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lopez 06/24/92 12/09/92 168 D-4015Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. 01/05/94 06/22/94 168 94-0357 Brownsville-Valley Regional Medical Ctr. v. Gamez 09/15/94 03/02/95 168 97-1039 Proctor v. Andrews 01/16/98 07/03/98 168 D-1430Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ramirez 08/29/91 02/12/92 167 D-0855Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Wood 03/27/91 09/09/91 166 D-4395Missouri Pacific RR. v. Lemon 02/16/95 08/01/95 166 97-0825 Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc. 10/30/97 04/14/98 166 C-9422Baxter v. Ruddle 03/28/90 09/06/90 162 94-0046 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Woodlock 05/11/94 10/20/94 162 C-7129Butler v. Holt Machinery Co. 05/03/89 10/11/89 161 C-9242Advertising & Policy Comm. v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. 05/09/90 10/17/90 161 C-9877Jones v. Strauss 06/27/90 12/05/90 161 D-0147Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals 11/14/90 04/24/91 161 D-1067Odle v. City of Denison 11/13/91 04/22/92 161 D-1145Chapin & Chapin, Inc. v. Texas Sand & Gravel Co. 09/18/91 02/26/92 161 D-1536Black v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit 01/08/92 06/17/92 161 D-2133Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v. Salyer 04/29/92 10/07/92 161
Page 19
007104-001927 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-3324Jones v. Valadez 04/21/93 09/29/93 161 00-0348 Texas Natural Resource & Conservation Comm'n v. White 11/16/00 04/26/01 161 00-0829 Yzaguirre v. KCS Resources, Inc. 01/11/01 06/21/01 161 01-0287 Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Baker 01/10/02 06/20/02 161 94-0878 Union Pump Co. v. Albritton 12/01/94 05/11/95 161 98-0554 Urrutia v. Decker 10/29/98 04/08/99 161 98-1100 Elliott-Williams Co. v. Diaz 07/08/99 12/16/99 161 95-1339 L.M. Healthcare, Inc. v. Childs 04/12/96 09/19/96 160 D-4397FDIC v. Nueces County 05/11/94 10/13/94 155 94-0421 Caballero v. Central Power & Light Co. 06/15/94 11/17/94 155 95-1165 Walker v. Harris 01/11/96 06/14/96 155 C-7379Mount Pleasant Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lindburg 09/14/88 02/15/89 154 C-8118Martin v. Martin 02/08/89 07/12/89 154 C-8617Texas Dept. of Human Serv. v. E.B. 05/09/90 10/10/90 154 C-8995Bockelmann v. Marynick 11/22/89 04/25/90 154 C-9006Viles v. Security Nat'l Ins. 11/15/89 04/18/90 154 C-9071Marino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 11/22/89 04/25/90 154 C-9207Enserch Corp. v. Parker 01/03/90 06/06/90 154 D-1320Religious of the Sacred Heart v. City of Houston 01/29/92 07/01/92 154 D-2937Turner v. First Court of Appeals 12/31/92 06/03/93 154 94-0416 Smith v. Houston Chem. Serv., Inc. 09/15/94 02/16/95 154 96-0022 Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKee 11/15/96 04/18/97 154 98-0728 Southeastern Pipe Line Co. v. Tichacek 01/07/99 06/10/99 154 99-1071 Texas A&M Univ. v. Dalmac Constr. Co. 08/31/00 02/01/01 154 99-1301 Stringer v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. 01/06/00 06/08/00 154 C-9308Webb County Appraisal Dist. v. New Laredo Hotel, Inc. 01/31/90 07/03/90 153 94-1233 Tilton v. Marshall 03/02/95 08/01/95 152 95-0881 Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist.01/30/96 06/28/96 150 95-1150 Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates 02/09/96 07/08/96 150 95-1283 Liberty Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Akin 02/09/96 07/08/96 150 94-0002 Copeland v. Boone 05/11/94 10/06/94 148 95-0652 Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy 11/16/95 04/12/96 148 C-8063Millhouse v. Wiesenthal 01/11/89 06/07/89 147 C-8089Cosgrove v. Grimes 02/01/89 06/28/89 147 C-8915McAllen Methodist Hosp. v. Longoria 10/04/89 02/28/90 147 D-0100Cecil v. Smith 10/03/90 02/27/91 147 D-0363Ferguson v. Ninth Court of Appeals 10/10/90 03/06/91 147 D-1464Star-Telegram, Inc v. Walker 02/05/92 07/01/92 147 D-1827Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 12/04/91 04/29/92 147 D-2170Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Serv. Agency 09/09/92 02/03/93 147 D-2174Collum v. City of Abilene 06/17/92 11/11/92 147 D-4045Thomas v. Ray 11/03/93 03/30/94 147 D-4202Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez 06/22/95 11/16/95 147 00-0418 Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins 11/30/00 04/26/01 147 97-0384 Mirzadeh v. Mirzadeh 12/04/97 04/30/98 147 98-0115 Earle v. Ratliff 02/04/99 07/01/99 147 98-0256 Blum v. Lanier 02/04/99 07/01/99 147 98-0808 Phillips v. Beaber 01/07/99 06/03/99 147 97-1073 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Rodriguez 06/05/98 10/29/98 146 D-3869Mentis v. Barnard 09/10/93 02/02/94 145 C-9476De Gonzalez v. Mission Am. Ins. Co. 04/18/90 09/06/90 141 C-9739Ex parte Lee 04/18/90 09/06/90 141 C-7865Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals 10/12/88 03/01/89 140
Page 20
007104-001928 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-7942Vinson v. Burgess 01/11/89 05/31/89 140 C-8101Commissioners Court v. Winborne 01/11/89 05/31/89 140 C-8899Humana Hosp. Corp. v. American Medical Sys., Inc. 10/11/89 02/28/90 140 D-1423Meraz v. Odom 01/22/92 06/10/92 140 D-2481F/R Cattle Co. v. State 12/02/92 04/21/93 140 D-3153Berger v. Berger 05/19/93 10/06/93 140 94-0922 Syntax, Inc. v. Hall 12/22/94 05/11/95 140 95-0250 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. v. Ashby 04/12/96 08/30/96 140 97-1039 Proctor v. Andrews 01/16/98 06/05/98 140 98-1220 Havlen v. McDougall 08/26/99 01/13/00 140 99-0411 Embrey v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. 12/02/99 04/20/00 140 97-0125 General Motors Corp. v. Gayle 02/21/97 07/09/97 138 97-0229 Hatley v. Texas A & M University 09/04/97 01/16/98 134 C-7507Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. 10/26/88 03/08/89 133 C-8892Greenhalgh v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co. 11/29/89 04/11/90 133 C-9537Bazile v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. 05/09/90 09/19/90 133 C-9782Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals 06/13/90 10/24/90 133 D-1885Boyert v. Tauber 02/19/92 07/01/92 133 D-2252Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. Moore 09/16/92 01/27/93 133 D-3997Moore v. Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp. 12/08/93 04/20/94 133 D-4171Cain v. Hearst Corp. 02/09/94 06/22/94 133 01-0734 Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman 01/31/02 06/13/02 133 99-0453 Henson v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 12/02/99 04/13/00 133 97-0894 Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Texas Employment Comm'n 02/13/98 06/25/98 132 97-1005 Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Manasco 02/13/98 06/23/98 130 95-0391 Davenport v. State 06/22/95 10/27/95 127 95-1041 Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist. 03/07/96 07/12/96 127 C-7109Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc. 02/08/89 06/14/89 126 C-7801NCNB Texas Nat'l Bank v. Coker 10/19/88 02/22/89 126 C-9186Cate v. Dover Corp. 01/31/90 06/06/90 126 C-9865Ex parte Grisham 05/30/90 10/03/90 126 D-2753Willingham Auto World v. Jones 09/30/92 02/03/93 126 D-2835Forbis v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. 12/16/92 04/21/93 126 D-4066City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez 11/24/93 03/30/94 126 00-0453 In re City of Georgetown 10/12/00 02/15/01 126 94-0648 Travelers' Indem. Co. v. Fuller 10/13/94 02/16/95 126 94-0782 DeWitt v. Harris County 02/16/95 06/22/95 126 96-0683 Commissioners Court v. Agan 10/18/96 02/21/97 126 D-2308Schultz v. Cadle Co. 12/31/92 05/05/93 125 C-9538Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 02/16/90 06/20/90 124 D-0378Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby 10/24/90 02/25/91 124 D-3751Berry Property Mgmt., Inc. v. Bliskey 09/10/93 01/12/94 124 95-0978 Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Products Co. 03/07/96 07/08/96 123 D-4530Brook v. Brook 02/02/94 06/02/94 120 95-0882 Welsh v. Welsh 01/11/96 05/10/96 120 C-7534Cherne Industries, Inc. v. Magallanes 09/28/88 01/25/89 119 C-8033Beck v. Beck 02/08/89 06/07/89 119 C-8215Shook v. Herman 07/12/89 11/08/89 119 C-8813Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc. 11/22/89 03/21/90 119 C-9289General Land Office v. Oxy U.S.A., Inc. 01/17/90 05/16/90 119 C-9953Texas-New Mexico Power Co. v. Texas Indus. Energy Consumers12/05/90 04/03/91 119 C-9966Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell 06/27/90 10/24/90 119 D-0758London Market Cos. v. Schattman 02/13/91 06/12/91 119
Page 21
007104-001929 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-1567Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Fluor Corp. 03/04/92 07/01/92 119 D-3041Exxon Corp. v. West Texas Gathering Co. 03/03/93 06/30/93 119 D-4179In re Thacker 02/16/94 06/15/94 119 00-0846 Furr's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Bethune 03/01/01 06/28/01 119 94-1148 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears 03/02/95 06/29/95 119 95-0174 Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Garcia 03/02/95 06/29/95 119 95-1242 Scott & White Mem. Hosp. v. Schexnider 08/16/96 12/13/96 119 97-0900 Van v. Pena 12/03/98 04/01/99 119 98-1243 In re Alcatel USA, Inc. 09/09/99 01/06/00 119 C-9501Ayres v. Canales 02/01/90 05/30/90 118 95-0505 Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia 07/07/95 11/02/95 118 95-0633 Dow Chem. Co. v. Sanderson 07/07/95 11/02/95 118 D-3302Bird v. W.C.W. 09/10/93 01/05/94 117 D-3694Board of Law Examiners v. Stevens 09/10/93 01/05/94 117 96-0496 The Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez 11/26/96 03/21/97 115 D-1469Carrollton-Farmers Branch Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Ind. Sch. 10/09/91 Dist. 01/30/92 113 D-1477Andrews Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. 10/09/91 01/30/92 113 D-1493McCarty v. County Educ. Dist. #21 10/09/91 01/30/92 113 D-1544Reyes v. Mitchell County Educ. Dist. 10/09/91 01/30/92 113 D-1560Highland Park Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist.10/09/91 01/30/92 113 D-2060Fitch v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 02/18/92 06/10/92 113 D-2064Bentsen v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 02/18/92 06/10/92 113 95-0206 Sonnier v. Chisholm-Ryder Co. 03/16/95 07/07/95 113 C-7426McKinley v. Stripling 09/21/88 01/11/89 112 C-8079Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Texas State Board of Ins. 03/01/89 06/21/89 112 C-8295State v. 1985 Chevrolet 06/21/89 10/11/89 112 C-8461Rainbo Baking Co. v. Stafford 10/11/89 01/31/90 112 C-8847Rogers v. Clinton 02/21/90 06/13/90 112 C-9521Dickson v. Simpson 10/24/90 02/13/91 112 D-0450Bullock v. House of Lloyd Inc. 02/20/91 06/12/91 112 D-0747Texas-New Mexico Power Co. v. Stem 06/19/91 10/09/91 112 D-1665Rowntree v. Hunsucker 02/05/92 05/27/92 112 D-1901Ex parte Buller 01/08/92 04/29/92 112 D-2895First Nat'l Bank v. Tex Sun Beechcraft North, Inc. 12/16/92 04/07/93 112 95-0075 Bigham v. Dempster 02/16/95 06/08/95 112 95-0081 Bigham v. Beck 02/16/95 06/08/95 112 95-0852 Jennings v. Burgess 11/16/95 03/07/96 112 96-1299 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender 01/16/98 05/08/98 112 98-0623 Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equipment 02/04/99 05/27/99 112 98-0784 Melton v. State 01/07/99 04/29/99 112 D-2886Archer v. Transportation Ins. Co. 12/31/92 04/21/93 111 C-8823River Oaks Trust Co. v. Stovall 07/07/89 10/25/89 110 97-0631 D.S.A., Inc. c. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist. 05/08/98 08/25/98 109 97-0941 State v. Roland 05/08/98 08/25/98 109 D-4376Trinity River Auth. v. URS Consultants, Inc. 01/12/94 04/28/94 106 C-8050Southern States Transportation, Inc. v. State 02/08/89 05/24/89 105 C-8052In re Estate of Devitt 07/12/89 10/25/89 105 C-8055Womco, Inc. v. Market Planners Ins. Agency, Inc. 06/28/89 10/11/89 105 C-8353Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby 06/21/89 10/04/89 105 C-9108Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Comm'n 10/11/89 01/24/90 105 C-9384Ex parte Jordan 01/03/90 04/18/90 105 C-9596City of Fort Worth v. Williams 06/27/90 10/10/90 105 D-1366Exxon Corp. v. Perez 05/27/92 09/09/92 105
Page 22
007104-001930 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-2650Davis v. Griffith 11/04/92 02/17/93 105 D-2651Hebert v. Griffith 11/04/92 02/17/93 105 D-2884Duross v. Freeman 12/09/92 03/24/93 105 D-3328Barbero v. Wittig 02/03/93 05/19/93 105 D-3845Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Garcia 09/29/93 01/12/94 105 94-1231 State v. Pruett 03/02/95 06/15/95 105 95-0678 Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Waiters 10/27/95 02/09/96 105 95-0873 Huie v. DeShazo 10/27/95 02/09/96 105 95-0874 Servants of the Paraclete v. Ashby 10/27/95 02/09/96 105 96-0292 State v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 06/06/96 09/19/96 105 96-1263 Miller v. Metro Health Found. 12/04/97 03/19/98 105 C-9217City of Weatherford v. Parker County 03/21/90 07/03/90 104 D-1735Wittneben v. Lewis 10/31/91 02/12/92 104 01-0137 Doody v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. 02/26/01 06/07/01 101 94-0504 Concord Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co. 11/17/97 02/26/98 101 95-1251 Holmes v. Morales 03/07/96 06/14/96 99 95-1292 Bruni v. Bruni 03/07/96 06/14/96 99 C-7781Rodriguez v. Naylor Industries, Inc. 10/19/88 01/25/89 98 C-8063Millhouse v. Wiesenthal 01/11/89 04/19/89 98 C-8849Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc. 10/25/89 01/31/90 98 C-9031Acker v. Texas Water Commission 01/24/90 05/02/90 98 C-9049Nolan v. Ramsey 10/25/89 01/31/90 98 C-9155Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Kirby 11/22/89 02/28/90 98 D-2351Duke v. Maryland Cas. Co. 09/09/92 12/16/92 98 D-3839Brosseau v. Woods 06/23/93 09/29/93 98 00-0386 Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry 02/15/01 05/24/01 98 96-0433 Diaz v. Westphal 12/13/96 03/21/97 98 96-0967 Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth 01/10/97 04/18/97 98 98-0076 In re Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. 05/21/98 08/25/98 96 96-0357 Microsoft Corp. v. Sixth Court of Appeals 06/28/96 10/01/96 95 D-1328Casares v. Marsh 07/29/91 10/30/91 93 94-0442 Enis v. Smith 06/15/94 09/15/94 92 C-7616Johnson v. Swain 02/22/89 05/24/89 91 C-8024Ames v. Ames 04/12/89 07/12/89 91 C-8117Trevino v. Murray 07/12/89 10/11/89 91 C-8689Damon v. Cornett 09/20/89 12/20/89 91 C-9464City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners 03/28/90 06/27/90 91 D-0379General Electric Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apartments 03/20/91 06/19/91 91 D-0473Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran01/23/91 04/24/91 91 D-0714McLaren v. Beard 03/20/91 06/19/91 91 D-1494Ex parte Sipes 09/11/91 12/11/91 91 D-3089GTE Communication Systems Corp. v. Tanner 03/31/93 06/30/93 91 D-3172Rivercenter Assoc. v. Rivera 03/24/93 06/23/93 91 D-3811State Bar of Texas v. Humphreys 10/06/93 01/05/94 91 00-0282 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bonner 02/08/01 05/10/01 91 01-0318 In re Cornyn 08/30/01 11/29/01 91 96-0590 Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gilchrist 03/21/97 06/20/97 91 99-0843 In re V.L.K. 03/23/00 06/22/00 91 D-0378Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby 10/24/90 01/22/91 90 C-9225City of Garland v. Barrera 12/31/90 03/27/91 86 D-4545Kos v. Packer 03/09/94 06/02/94 85 95-0949 Tenneco Oil Co. v. Galveston Terminals, Inc. 03/07/96 05/31/96 85 95-1209 Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield 03/07/96 05/31/96 85
Page 23
007104-001931 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-8558Edwards v. Lone Star Gas Co. 10/11/89 01/03/90 84 C-9522Bushell v. Dean 11/21/90 02/13/91 84 D-0206Brown v. Martin Gas Sales, Inc. 06/19/91 09/11/91 84 D-1119Germania Ins. Co. v. Dicken 09/25/91 12/18/91 84 D-1520Johnson v. City of Houston 11/13/91 02/05/92 84 D-1840Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmelee 01/20/93 04/14/93 84 D-2453Womack v. Reddin 12/02/92 02/24/93 84 D-4560Ex parte Delcourt 03/30/94 06/22/94 84 00-0141 Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. 09/14/00 12/07/00 84 01-0383 Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Needham 02/14/02 05/09/02 84 95-0048 Able Supply Co. v. Moye 02/16/95 05/11/95 84 96-0489 Maple Run at Austin Mun. Util. Dist. v. Monaghan 07/26/96 10/18/96 84 98-0598 In re Continental Airlines, Inc. 07/03/98 09/24/98 83 98-0599 In re Legend Airlines, Inc. 07/03/98 09/24/98 83 C-7784Hellman v. Mateo 04/26/89 07/12/89 77 C-8089Cosgrove v. Grimes 02/01/89 04/19/89 77 C-8170Tice v. City of Pasadena 01/11/89 03/29/89 77 C-8195Freeman v. City of Pasadena 01/11/89 03/29/89 77 C-9551Correa v. First Court of Appeals 02/21/90 05/09/90 77 C-9552Carter v. First Court of Appeals 02/21/90 05/09/90 77 D-0749Ex parte MacCallum 02/13/91 05/01/91 77 D-1857McConnell v. Memorial Constr. Co. 12/16/92 03/03/93 77 D-2864Wellborn v. Sears, Roebuch & Co. 09/23/92 12/09/92 77 D-3274City of San Antonio v. Singleton 04/14/93 06/30/93 77 D-4090Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc. 11/17/93 02/02/94 77 94-0581 Grant v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 10/06/94 12/22/94 77 00-0232 Ernst & Young v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. 10/19/00 01/03/01 76 97-0151 Bleeker v. Villarreal 10/16/97 12/31/97 76 97-0498 Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Bleeker 01/29/98 04/14/98 75 D-3489State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dellana 03/24/93 06/03/93 71 C-7662Marshall v. Vise 01/18/89 03/29/89 70 C-7911The Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Mattox 01/11/89 03/22/89 70 C-8620Ex parte Garza 05/03/89 07/12/89 70 C-8621Ex parte Leal 05/03/89 07/12/89 70 C-9132Flanner v. Logan 12/20/89 02/28/90 70 C-9408Driskill v. State 02/07/90 04/18/90 70 D-3329Jaffe Aircraft Corp. v. Carr 09/29/93 12/08/93 70 00-0386 Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry 02/15/01 04/26/01 70 D-0229Texas Instruments Inc. v. Packer 09/06/90 11/14/90 69 C-8166Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc. 02/22/89 04/26/89 63 C-8279Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc. 05/10/89 07/12/89 63 C-8627Ex parte Gonzales 05/10/89 07/12/89 63 C-8628Ex parte Garza 05/10/89 07/12/89 63 C-8629Ex parte Leal 05/10/89 07/12/89 63 D-0044Responsive Terminal Systems, Inc. v. Boy Scouts of America 11/14/90 01/16/91 63 D-0971Stewart-Kuss v. Moore 04/17/91 06/19/91 63 D-1549Richards v. Mena 10/09/91 12/11/91 63 D-2962Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott 12/02/92 02/03/93 63 01-0220 West Oaks Hosp., Inc. v. Jones 10/11/01 12/13/01 63 D-3668Rhodes v. Batilla 09/10/93 11/10/93 61 C-7998Minnick v. Robinson 12/20/89 02/14/90 56 C-9776Ex parte Lindley 05/02/90 06/27/90 56 D-0657Sentry Ins. v. Moss 01/30/91 03/27/91 56
Page 24
007104-001932 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-0972Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Abascal 04/24/91 06/19/91 56 D-3902Tilton v. Moye 12/08/93 02/02/94 56 D-4302Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. OmniBank 02/02/94 03/30/94 56 D-4311City of Dallas v. Mitchell 12/08/93 02/02/94 56 00-0527 Kanz v. Hood 03/01/01 04/26/01 56 01-0521 ITT Hartfield Ins. Co. v. Home Depot, Inc. 02/14/02 04/11/02 56 95-0379 Continental Cas. Co. v. Flores 10/27/95 12/22/95 56 98-1070 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie 07/01/99 08/26/99 56 99-1204 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer 08/24/00 10/19/00 56 D-1282Firestone v. Marshall 07/12/91 09/05/91 55 D-3664Thomas v. Pryor 09/10/93 11/03/93 54 C-9577Carter v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 02/20/90 04/11/90 50 C-7949Haney v. Purcell Co. 04/05/89 05/24/89 49 C-8305Daugherty v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. 04/26/89 06/14/89 49 C-9579Masinga v. 160th Judicial District Court 05/02/90 06/20/90 49 D-1193Valley Baptist Medical Centre v. Bennett 02/12/92 04/01/92 49 D-2662Wentworth v. Meyer 07/29/92 09/16/92 49 D-2771Havner v. -Z E Mart Stores, Inc. 12/16/92 02/03/93 49 D-3890Office of Pub. Util. Council v. Public Util. Comm'n 10/27/93 12/15/93 49 D-4087Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. United States Postal Serv. 10/27/93 12/15/93 49 D-4188Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Moye 09/29/93 11/17/93 49 D-0106Cass v. Jones 07/27/90 09/12/90 47 D-1345Pelt v. Wittig 07/23/91 09/05/91 44 95-0228 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Daigle 08/01/95 09/14/95 44 95-0301 Provident Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Stephens 09/14/95 10/27/95 43 96-0643 State v. Hardberger 07/18/96 08/30/96 43 C-8617Texas Dept. of Human Serv. v. E.B. 05/09/90 06/20/90 42 C-8771Whitson v. Goodbodys, Inc. 01/03/90 02/14/90 42 C-8974National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lerma 01/24/90 03/07/90 42 D-0754DeMary v. Sanderson 02/13/91 03/27/91 42 D-0794United States Ins. Group. v. Lloyd 02/27/91 04/10/91 42 D-0810HSP of Texas, Inc. v. Hall 02/27/91 04/10/91 42 D-1102City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez 02/26/92 04/08/92 42 D-1817Terrazas v. Ramirez 12/04/91 01/15/92 42 D-4350International Armament Corp. v. Martin 12/08/93 01/19/94 42 98-0934 In re Perritt 03/11/99 04/22/99 42 C-9396Brown v. Meyer 12/29/89 02/07/90 40 C-9538Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 02/16/90 03/28/90 40 C-9798Ex parte Holland 05/04/90 06/13/90 40 D-1374Syntek Finance Corp. v. Canales 08/02/91 09/11/91 40 C-9655State v. Andrews 03/26/90 05/02/90 37 C-9243Advertising & Policy Comm. v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. 09/12/90 10/17/90 35 C-9303Chase Manhattan Bank v. Lindsay 02/28/90 04/04/90 35 D-0698Lawrence v. Gonzalez 01/23/91 02/27/91 35 D-2245Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Thompson 02/02/94 03/09/94 35 D-3393Texas Water Comm'n v. Dellana 02/17/93 03/24/93 35 D-4292Dorsett Bros. Concrete Supp., Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co. 01/12/94 02/16/94 35 01-0512 In re Nitla S.A. 03/07/02 04/11/02 35 98-1073 In re J7S Inc. 04/22/99 05/27/99 35 98-1082 In re J7S Cattle Co. 04/22/99 05/27/99 35 C-8861Minnick v. Coker 08/17/89 09/20/89 34 D-2792Finlay v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. 12/31/92 02/03/93 34 D-2942Cabrera v. Cedarapids, Inc. 12/31/92 02/03/93 34
Page 25
007104-001933 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
97-0023 Rapid-American Corp. v. Link 02/21/97 03/27/97 34 01-0570 In re Bolle, Inc. 09/20/01 10/23/01 33 00-0601 Lone Star Gas Co. v. EFP Corp. 11/19/01 12/20/01 31 C-8994Martin v. Gulf Ins. Group 05/09/90 06/06/90 28 C-9172Ex parte Mosquedo 10/25/89 11/22/89 28 D-0321Henderson v. O'Neill 10/03/90 10/31/90 28 D-0375Nan Travis Memorial Hosp. v. Touchy 10/10/90 11/07/90 28 D-0808Ramirez v. Packer 03/06/91 04/03/91 28 D-4012Parker v. Frost Nat'l Bank 03/09/94 04/06/94 28 94-0269 Temple Indep. Sch. Dist. v. English 03/02/95 03/30/95 28 95-0750 University Hosp., Inc. v. Cooke 10/18/96 11/15/96 28 95-0805 City of Alamo v. Montes 10/18/96 11/15/96 28 96-0481 Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc. v. Tyson 11/15/96 12/13/96 28 94-0079 Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Chambers 05/11/94 06/02/94 22 D-1549Richards v. Mena 10/09/91 10/30/91 21 01-0822 In re M.A.C. 02/28/02 03/21/02 21 96-0204 Williams v. Brooks 01/10/97 01/31/97 21 98-0818 In re City of Dallas 09/03/98 09/24/98 21 C-9948Ex parte Wilson 06/07/90 06/27/90 20 C-9949Ex parte Wilson 06/07/90 06/27/90 20 C-9446Bloom v. Fourth Court of Appeals 01/19/90 02/07/90 19 D-2032Dawkins v. Meyer 02/07/92 02/26/92 19 96-0364 Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Johnson 04/24/96 05/10/96 16 02-0104 In re Gamble 02/04/02 02/19/02 15 C-8682Cropper v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. 09/06/89 09/20/89 14 D-0299Marshall v. Fifth Court of Appeals 09/19/90 10/03/90 14 D-1817Terrazas v. Ramirez 12/04/91 12/18/91 14 94-0593 Dow Corning Corp. v. Schneider 09/01/94 09/15/94 14 94-0759 Dow Corning Corp. v. Soussan 09/01/94 09/15/94 14 94-0761 Dow Corning Corp. v. Bianchi 09/01/94 09/15/94 14 95-0480 Occidental Chem. Corp. v. Banales 06/01/95 06/15/95 14 C-9506Sears v. Bayoud 02/07/90 02/14/90 7 D-0516Ex parte Williams 11/14/90 11/21/90 7 D-0596Ex parte Boyd 12/12/90 12/19/90 7 D-0865Pan American Sales Corp. v. Rhea 04/03/91 04/10/91 7 01-0979 In re Perry 10/15/01 10/22/01 7 99-0406 Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. 08/26/99 09/02/99 7 99-0461 Harris v. Harbour Title Co. 08/26/99 09/02/99 7 01-0728 Perry v. Del Rio 09/07/01 09/12/01 5 01-0810 Perry v. Cotera 09/07/01 09/12/01 5 01-0827 In re Bentsen 09/07/01 09/12/01 5 01-0988 Perry v. Del Rio 10/15/01 10/19/01 4 C-9448Martinez v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals 01/19/90 01/22/90 3 01-1002 Del Rio v. Perry 10/16/01 10/19/01 3 D-2856Slagle v. Hannah 09/15/92 09/16/92 1 C-7192Warren v. Triland Investment Group 11/22/89 11/22/89 0 C-7194Responsive Terminal Systems, Inc. v. Boy Scouts of America 07/05/89 07/05/89 0 C-7555Dorchester Gas Producing Co. v. Hagy 10/04/89 10/04/89 0 C-7658Sullivan v. Sullivan 04/05/89 04/05/89 0 C-7784Hellman v. Mateo 04/26/89 04/26/89 0 C-7785Redland Fabricating & Welding, Inc. v. Aramco Serv. Co. 04/05/89 04/05/89 0 C-7821Packer v. Fifth Court of Appeals 02/08/89 02/08/89 0 C-7955State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ollis 01/11/89 01/11/89 0
Page 26
007104-001934 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-7986Bobbitt v. Weeks 05/17/89 05/17/89 0 C-7994Eshleman v. Shield 02/15/89 02/15/89 0 C-8103Migura v. Dukes 05/24/89 05/24/89 0 C-8117Trevino v. Murray 07/12/89 07/12/89 0 C-8148Otis Elevator Co. v. Bedre 06/21/89 06/21/89 0 C-8160Dobbins v. Redden 02/28/90 02/28/90 0 C-8191Philipp Brothers, Inc. v. Oil Country Specialists, Ltd. 06/07/89 06/07/89 0 C-8211Lone Star Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm'n 04/05/89 04/05/89 0 C-8226Splettstosser v. Myer 11/08/89 11/08/89 0 C-8250Roberson v. Robinson 04/19/89 04/19/89 0 C-8267State v. Garza 09/20/89 09/20/89 0 C-8284Boothe v. Hausler 03/08/89 03/08/89 0 C-8288Snoke v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. 05/03/89 05/03/89 0 C-8295State v. 1985 Chevrolet 06/21/89 06/21/89 0 C-8356Palmer Well Serv., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 07/12/89 07/12/89 0 C-8361Sharp v. Broadway Nat'l Bank 02/14/90 02/14/90 0 C-8396Cincinnati Inc. v. Hernandez 06/14/89 06/14/89 0 C-8430Rose v. Fifth Court of Appeals 03/22/89 03/22/89 0 C-8456Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. Sierra 02/14/90 02/14/90 0 C-8461Rainbo Baking Co. v. Stafford 10/11/89 10/11/89 0 C-8473LBL Oil Co. v. International Power Services, Inc. 09/20/89 09/20/89 0 C-8543Sadler v. Sadler 05/17/89 05/17/89 0 C-8571Sosa v. City of Balch Springs 06/07/89 06/07/89 0 C-8607Johnson v. City of Fort Worth 06/28/89 06/28/89 0 C-8642State Bar v. Evans 06/28/89 06/28/89 0 C-8665Paragon Sales Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. 06/28/89 06/28/89 0 C-8672Talmantez v. Strauss 06/28/89 06/28/89 0 C-8729State v. Arnold 10/18/89 10/18/89 0 C-8736American Medical Int'l, Inc. v. Casseb 07/12/89 07/12/89 0 C-8742International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 03/07/90 03/07/90 0 C-8784Burkard v. Asco Co. 11/08/89 11/08/89 0 C-8807Preferred Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Shelby 10/04/89 10/04/89 0 C-8813Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc. 11/22/89 11/22/89 0 C-8864Dorchester Master Ltd. Partnership v. Hunt 04/25/90 04/25/90 0 C-8971Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc. v. Zardenetta 09/13/89 09/13/89 0 C-8976Gant v. DeLeon 02/28/90 02/28/90 0 C-9003Vawter v. Garvey 03/07/90 03/07/90 0 C-9028INA v. Briscoe 11/29/89 11/29/89 0 C-9147San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke 01/10/90 01/10/90 0 C-9175Vastine v. Bank of Dallas 03/07/90 03/07/90 0 C-9178Mr. Penguin Tuxedo Rental & Sales, Inc. v. NCR Corp. 04/25/90 04/25/90 0 C-9211Athari v. Hutcheson 01/16/91 01/16/91 0 C-9225City of Garland v. Barrera 12/31/90 12/31/90 0 C-9246Christiansen v. Prezelski 01/10/90 01/10/90 0 C-9250Emerson v. Tunnell 05/02/90 05/02/90 0 C-9254Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad 01/31/90 01/31/90 0 C-9303Chase Manhattan Bank v. Lindsay 02/28/90 02/28/90 0 C-9369Hayden v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 02/28/90 02/28/90 0 C-9391Smith v. Williams 02/28/90 02/28/90 0 C-9439Berry v. Berry 03/28/90 03/28/90 0 C-9449Lee v. Braeburn Valley West Civic Ass'n 03/07/90 03/07/90 0 C-9469Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. 06/30/93 06/30/93 0 C-9470Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus. 02/21/90 02/21/90 0
Page 27
007104-001935 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
C-9490Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest 03/07/90 03/07/90 0 C-9522Bushell v. Dean 11/21/90 11/21/90 0 C-9559Mayhew v. Caprito 05/30/90 05/30/90 0 C-9589Holmes v. Harrison 11/21/90 11/21/90 0 C-9598Gill Sav. Ass'n v. Chair King, Inc. 10/17/90 10/17/90 0 C-9621Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Vaughn 06/20/90 06/20/90 0 C-9627Carter v. Mapco, Inc. 05/09/90 05/09/90 0 C-9670City of Temple Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Bender 04/25/90 04/25/90 0 C-9877Jones v. Strauss 11/11/92 11/11/92 0 D-0002Worford v. Stamper 11/14/90 11/14/90 0 D-0032Pan American Life Ins. Co. v. Erbauer Constr. Corp. 01/30/91 01/30/91 0 D-0046New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez 12/05/90 12/05/90 0 D-0047Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith 10/17/90 10/17/90 0 D-0081Garvey v. Vawter 09/19/90 09/19/90 0 D-0124DSC Finance Corp. v. Moffitt 10/24/90 10/24/90 0 D-0130Blackman v. Langford 09/19/90 09/19/90 0 D-0163Ex parte Garcia 09/06/90 09/06/90 0 D-0171Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League 12/31/90 12/31/90 0 D-0206Brown v. Martin Gas Sales, Inc. 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0215McConnell v. May 10/10/90 10/10/90 0 D-0239M.S. v. All Saints Episcopal Hosp. 01/23/91 01/23/91 0 D-0371Powers v. Palacios 06/12/91 06/12/91 0 D-0420Tricentrol Oil Trading, Inc. v. Annesley 05/08/91 05/08/91 0 D-0422Anderson v. Snider 04/10/91 04/10/91 0 D-0434Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Lacy 11/28/90 11/28/90 0 D-0464Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Simon 06/12/91 06/12/91 0 D-0478Landmark Amer. Ins. Co. v. Pulse Ambulance Serv., Inc. 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0508Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group 01/23/91 01/23/91 0 D-0569Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Small 03/27/91 03/27/91 0 D-0572F & A Equipment Leasing v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. 07/01/92 07/01/92 0 D-0720Brownsville Navigation Dist. v. Izaguirre 05/06/92 05/06/92 0 D-0770Feith Systems & Software, Inc. v. Design Information Systems 06/05/91 06/05/91 0 D-0848Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc. 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0852Weaver v. Southwest Nat'l Bank 06/05/91 06/05/91 0 D-0858Ross Stores, Inc. v. Redken Laboratories, Inc. 06/12/91 06/12/91 0 D-0866O'Connor v. Sam Houston Medical Hosp., Inc. 04/24/91 04/24/91 0 D-0898Welex v. Broom 10/16/91 10/16/91 0 D-0940Johnson v. Butler 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0953Smith v. O'Neill 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0954Ex parte Sproull 09/11/91 09/11/91 0 D-0980Hood v. Amarillo Nat'l Bank 09/18/91 09/18/91 0 D-0987Head v. Twelfth Court of Appeals 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-0996Halsell v. Dehoyos 06/05/91 06/05/91 0 D-1024Wood v. Brown 11/20/91 11/20/91 0 D-1060Ex parte Eastland 06/19/91 06/19/91 0 D-1063Ex parte Perales 09/05/91 09/05/91 0 D-1069Dancy v. Daggett 09/18/91 09/18/91 0 D-1086In re C.C.G. 12/04/91 12/04/91 0 D-1093Briones v. Solomon 11/06/91 11/06/91 0 D-1102City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez 02/26/92 02/26/92 0 D-1126Malaysia British Assurance v. El Paso Reyco, Inc. 05/06/92 05/06/92 0 D-1132Gannon v. Baker 11/06/91 11/06/91 0 D-1145Chapin & Chapin, Inc. v. Texas Sand & Gravel Co. 09/18/91 09/18/91 0
Page 28
007104-001936 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-1145Chapin & Chapin, Inc. v. Texas Sand & Gravel Co. 09/30/92 09/30/92 0 D-1170General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Midland Central Appraisal Dist. 10/16/91 10/16/91 0 D-1172Ex parte Elliot 09/11/91 09/11/91 0 D-1192Towers of Texas, Inc. v. J&J Systems, Inc. 04/22/92 04/22/92 0 D-1194Thordson v. City of Houston 09/18/91 09/18/91 0 D-1197Mapco, Inc. v. Carter 10/23/91 10/23/91 0 D-1250State First Nat'l Bank v. Mollenhour 09/25/91 09/25/91 0 D-1276Texas Dept. of Human Serv. v. White 10/23/91 10/23/91 0 D-1287Service Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Harbison 11/06/91 11/06/91 0 D-1289State v. $11,014 10/23/91 10/23/91 0 D-1291Creel v. District Attorney 10/30/91 10/30/91 0 D-1294Elder Constr., Inc. v. City of Colleyville 09/16/92 09/16/92 0 D-1323Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hughes 04/22/92 04/22/92 0 D-1325Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey 05/06/92 05/06/92 0 D-1366Exxon Corp. v. Perez 05/27/92 05/27/92 0 D-1373Felderhoff v. Felderhoff 11/13/91 11/13/91 0 D-1386Mossler v. Shields 11/06/91 11/06/91 0 D-1404Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc. 12/09/92 12/09/92 0 D-1418Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals 03/13/92 03/13/92 0 D-1421Ex parte Briley 10/09/91 10/09/91 0 D-1452Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Gonzalez 11/06/91 11/06/91 0 D-1476H. E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Warner 12/02/92 12/02/92 0 D-1503Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd. 06/24/92 06/24/92 0 D-1518Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. Brown 12/04/91 12/04/91 0 D-1519Siewert v. Siewert 01/22/92 01/22/92 0 D-1539Koepp v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. 11/20/91 11/20/91 0 D-1557John v. State 02/26/92 02/26/92 0 D-1592State v. $435,000 10/07/92 10/07/92 0 D-1597Cahill v. Lyda 02/05/92 02/05/92 0 D-1603Orozco v. Sander 01/22/92 01/22/92 0 D-1670American Trading & Production Corp. v. Delgado 01/22/92 01/22/92 0 D-1677Gold Kist, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co. 05/06/92 05/06/92 0 D-1678Geo Viking, Inc. v. Tex-Lee Operating Co. 04/22/92 04/22/92 0 D-1680Green v. Morales 06/24/92 06/24/92 0 D-1701Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Wilson 04/29/92 04/29/92 0 D-1714Bank One v. Sunbelt Savings 02/05/92 02/05/92 0 D-1734Esquivel v. Watson 01/22/92 01/22/92 0 D-1772Smith v. Lippmann 02/19/92 02/19/92 0 D-1827Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall 12/04/91 12/04/91 0 D-1836Chandler v. Hyundai Motor Co. 05/06/92 05/06/92 0 D-1840Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmelee 01/20/93 01/20/93 0 D-1898In re V.C. 04/29/92 04/29/92 0 D-1899In re R.P. 04/29/92 04/29/92 0 D-1900In re D.V. 04/29/92 04/29/92 0 D-1970Borden, Inc. v. De la Rosa 07/01/92 07/01/92 0 D-1988Larouche v. Secretary of State 01/29/92 01/29/92 0 D-2005Ex parte Hernandez 03/25/92 03/25/92 0 D-2018State v. Tex-J Ranches, Inc. 10/21/92 10/21/92 0 D-2025Kennedy v. Eden 09/16/92 09/16/92 0 D-2031Mueller v. Saravia 03/25/92 03/25/92 0 D-2057Gibson v. Methodist Hospital 06/24/92 06/24/92 0 D-2072Exxon Gas System, Inc. v. Brandywine Indus. Gas, Inc. 06/17/92 06/17/92 0 D-2090Miller Brewing Co. v. Villarreal 04/29/92 04/29/92 0
Page 29
007104-001937 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-2136Martinez v. Windsor Park Dev. Co. 06/24/92 06/24/92 0 D-2180Landoll Corp. v. Morris 12/09/92 12/09/92 0 D-2205Clements v. Barnes 06/17/92 06/17/92 0 D-2228Geters v. Eagle Ins. Co. 06/24/92 06/24/92 0 D-2234City of Wichita Fallas v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. 05/27/92 05/27/92 0 D-2257HCA Health Serv. of Texas, Inc. v. Salinas 10/07/92 10/07/92 0 D-2278Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co. v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp. 11/11/92 11/11/92 0 D-2282Pietila v. Crites 02/24/93 02/24/93 0 D-2293McGough v. First Court of Appeals 06/17/92 06/17/92 0 D-2294Rooke v. Jenson 09/09/92 09/09/92 0 D-2296State v. Munday Enterprises 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-2299Thomas v. Allen 09/23/92 09/23/92 0 D-2304Bacon v. General Devices, Inc. 06/03/92 06/03/92 0 D-2320R.V. Industries v. County of Webb 04/07/93 04/07/93 0 D-2321Commonwealth Lloyd's Ins. Co. v. Thomas 01/20/93 01/20/93 0 D-2348Rogers v. Stell 07/01/92 07/01/92 0 D-2360State Dept. of Highways & Public Transp. v. Cotner 01/20/93 01/20/93 0 D-2425Howell v. Thompson 10/21/92 10/21/92 0 D-2444Kidder, Peabody & Co. v. Lutheran Brotherhood 11/11/92 11/11/92 0 D-2479Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Krell 07/01/92 07/01/92 0 D-2518Schein v. American Restaurant Group, Inc. 04/07/93 04/07/93 0 D-2522One 1985 Chevrolet v. State 02/24/93 02/24/93 0 D-2539Fanning v. Fanning 01/27/93 01/27/93 0 D-2559Bowen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 09/16/92 09/16/92 0 D-2595Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp. 12/08/93 12/08/93 0 D-2601H. B. Zachry Co. v. Gonzalez 02/03/93 02/03/93 0 D-2608State v. Brister 07/03/92 07/03/92 0 D-2616Schindler v. Austwell Farmers' Cooperative 10/14/92 10/14/92 0 D-2638State v. Spurs 10/07/92 10/07/92 0 D-2683Guaranty County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kline 12/31/92 12/31/92 0 D-2686Quail Harbor Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Gonzales 10/14/92 10/14/92 0 D-2780State v. Dowd 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-2781Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. Dulworth 12/16/92 12/16/92 0 D-2848Capital Income Properties-LXXX v. Blackmon 12/16/92 12/16/92 0 D-2878Eckles v. City of Lubbock 12/31/92 12/31/92 0 D-2893Meyerland Co. v. FDIC 01/27/93 01/27/93 0 D-2932State v. $80,631 12/16/92 12/16/92 0 D-2947The Island on Lake Travis, Ltd. v. The Hayman Co. 03/03/93 03/03/93 0 D-2962Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott 12/02/92 12/02/92 0 D-2987Bennett v. French Int'l & Calvert Motor Co. 12/02/92 12/02/92 0 D-3108Faulkner v. Culver 03/24/93 03/24/93 0 D-3138Oak Park Townhouses v. Brazosport Bank 03/24/93 03/24/93 0 D-3153Berger v. Berger 05/19/93 05/19/93 0 D-3156Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo 02/24/93 02/24/93 0 D-3162Horrocks v. Texas Dept. of Transp. 04/14/93 04/14/93 0 D-3166El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman 05/19/93 05/19/93 0 D-3185Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann 02/03/93 02/03/93 0 D-3190Houston Cable TV, Inc. v. Inwood West Civic Ass'n 05/19/93 05/19/93 0 D-3198Blair v. Fletcher 03/03/93 03/03/93 0 D-3201Levit v. Adams 03/24/93 03/24/93 0 D-3251Martinez v. The Crime Stoppers Advisory Council 01/08/93 01/08/93 0 D-3252In re B.I.V. 02/02/94 02/02/94 0 D-3258State v. Kitchen 03/24/93 03/24/93 0
Page 30
007104-001938 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-3262Light v. Centel Cellular Co. 10/06/93 10/06/93 0 D-3274City of San Antonio v. Singleton 04/14/93 04/14/93 0 D-3301FDIC v. Gray 03/24/93 03/24/93 0 D-3322Sawyer v. Millard 03/24/93 03/24/93 0 D-3326Nuernberg v. Texas Employment Comm'n 06/16/93 06/16/93 0 D-3328Barbero v. Wittig 02/03/93 02/03/93 0 D-3377Vanscot Concrete Co. v. Bailey 05/19/93 05/19/93 0 D-3387Edwards v. Holleman 06/16/93 06/16/93 0 D-3427Hennigan v. I.P. Petroleum Co. 06/30/93 06/30/93 0 D-3430Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams 06/16/93 06/16/93 0 D-3488State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley 06/23/93 06/23/93 0 D-3519Hughes v. Habitat Apartments 09/10/93 09/10/93 0 D-3564Forman v. Fina Oil & Chem. Co. 06/30/93 06/30/93 0 D-3627State v. Edwards 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-3637Riner v. Briargrove Park Property Owners, Inc. 06/30/93 06/30/93 0 D-3648Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. McDaniel 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-3654VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young 06/16/93 06/16/93 0 D-3659Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 D-3666Mauze v. Curry 09/10/93 09/10/93 0 D-3678Marino v. Hartsfield 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-3703Little v. Daggett 06/23/93 06/23/93 0 D-3741Viola v. Ratner Corp. 08/26/93 08/26/93 0 D-3773State v. Centennial Mortgage Corp. 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-3800State v. Burris 05/11/94 05/11/94 0 D-3803Springer v. Spruiell 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-3804Springer v. First Nat'l Bank 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-3811State Bar of Texas v. Humphreys 06/23/93 06/23/93 0 D-3819McConathy v. McConathy 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-3831Davis v. Zoning Board of Adjustment 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-3844Walling v. Metcalfe 10/06/93 10/06/93 0 D-3850Sanchez v. Board of Disciplinary Appeals 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 D-3860Jamar v. Patterson 11/17/93 11/17/93 0 D-3866Cadle Co. v. Estate of Weaver 03/09/94 03/09/94 0 D-3927Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. City of Irving 09/29/93 09/29/93 0 D-3927Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. City of Irving 10/27/93 10/27/93 0 D-3928Borden, Inc. v. Rios 08/26/93 08/26/93 0 D-3962County of Alameda v. Smith 09/29/93 09/29/93 0 D-3990Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cruz 12/08/93 12/08/93 0 D-3994Allstate Ins. Co. v. Carter 09/10/93 09/10/93 0 D-4005Academy of Model Aeronautics, Inc v. Packer 09/10/93 09/10/93 0 D-4031In re R.A.G. 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-4044City of Abilene v. Public Util. Comm'n 07/21/95 07/21/95 0 D-4055State Bar of Texas v. Kilpatrick 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-4061Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crowe 11/03/93 11/03/93 0 D-4071State v. Allen 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-4088State v. Hynes 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-4095State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Simmons 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 D-4150Henderson v. Floyd 01/12/95 01/12/95 0 D-4152Tippy v. Walker 11/17/93 11/17/93 0 D-4157EKA Liquidators v. Phillips 03/09/94 03/09/94 0 D-4177Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott 03/30/94 03/30/94 0 D-4220Service Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Thomas 12/22/93 12/22/93 0 D-4231Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Texas State Bd. of Ins. 02/09/94 02/09/94 0
Page 31
007104-001939 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
D-4258Walden v. Jeffery 03/16/95 03/16/95 0 D-4260Werner v. Colwell 11/24/93 11/24/93 0 D-4276Ex parte Jordan 11/17/93 11/17/93 0 D-4296M.R. Champion, Inc. v. Mizell 01/05/94 01/05/94 0 D-4305Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Texas Comm'r of Ins. 12/31/93 12/31/93 0 D-4357Rios v. Calhoon 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 D-4386GNB, Inc. v. Collin County Appraisal Dist. 03/09/94 03/09/94 0 D-4393Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 D-4400Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Comm'n 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 D-4415Freis v. Canales 04/28/94 04/28/94 0 D-4506Ex parte Lowe 06/08/94 06/08/94 0 D-4516Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Sanchez 03/30/94 03/30/94 0 D-4546Szczepanik v. First Southern Trust Co. 06/02/94 06/02/94 0 D-4560Ex parte Delcourt 03/30/94 03/30/94 0 D-4582Mischer Corp. v. Heil-Quaker Corp. 05/25/94 05/25/94 0 D-4588Groves v. Gabriel 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 D-4597Classen v. Irving Healthcare Sys. 04/27/95 04/27/95 0 00-0040 Diversified Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Hill, Heard, O'Neal, Gilstrap & Goetz09/20/01 09/20/01 0 00-0137 Brown v. Fullenweider 03/29/01 03/29/01 0 00-0140 In re Doe 1 03/02/00 03/02/00 0 00-0191 In re Doe 2 03/09/00 03/09/00 0 00-0193 In re Doe 3 03/13/00 03/13/00 0 00-0213 In re Doe 4 03/22/00 03/22/00 0 00-0224 In re Doe 1(II) 06/22/00 06/22/00 0 00-0233 Madison v. Gordon 02/01/01 02/01/01 0 00-0278 Brents v. Haynes & Boone 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-0285 Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez 10/26/00 10/26/00 0 00-0299 Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-0317 In re Doe 4(II) 04/13/00 04/13/00 0 00-0324 John v. Marshall Health Servs., Inc. 09/20/01 09/20/01 0 00-0413 Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Callender 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 00-0457 Rose City Sand Corp. v. Watson 01/18/01 01/18/01 0 00-0458 Estrada v. Dillon 04/12/01 04/12/01 0 00-0465 Compania Financiara Libano, S.A. v. Najarro 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 00-0474 In re University Interscholastic League 05/25/00 05/25/00 0 00-0485 Eiland v. Turpin, Smith, Dyer, Saxe & McDonald 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-0517 Kagan-Edelman Enterprises v. Bond 05/25/00 05/25/00 0 00-0554 In re J.W. 04/05/01 04/05/01 0 00-0763 Henry v. Dillard's Dept. Stores, Inc. 02/14/02 02/14/02 0 00-0774 Bobbitt v. Stran 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-0827 DSI Staff Connxions Southwest, Inc. v. Farias 01/18/01 01/18/01 0 00-0847 Wilmer-Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sullivan 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 00-0859 Gainsco County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martinez 10/12/00 10/12/00 0 00-0907 In re K.R. 11/08/01 11/08/01 0 00-0908 Parks v. Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 00-0911 Nash v. Harris County 11/08/01 11/08/01 0 00-0967 E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Bee Agricultural Co. 12/06/01 12/06/01 0 00-0974 Parsons v. Turley 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-1014 Parking Co. v. Wilson 09/20/01 09/20/01 0 00-1103 Jacobs v. Satterwhite 12/13/01 12/13/01 0 00-1185 In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. 11/08/01 11/08/01 0 00-1234 Guajardo v. Conwell 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 00-1249 Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Low 05/30/02 05/30/02 0
Page 32
007104-001940 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
00-1297 Sungard Data Sys., Inc. v. Southwest Securities, Inc. 05/17/01 05/17/01 0 00-1321 In re Texas Senate 12/28/00 12/28/00 0 01-0142 Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v. McNamara 02/14/02 02/14/02 0 01-0260 SCI Mgmt. Corp. v. Galvan 04/12/01 04/12/01 0 01-0405 Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mansfield 07/26/01 07/26/01 0 01-0432 Texas Dept. of Trasp. v. Ramirez 04/25/02 04/25/02 0 01-0456 Hayden v. Skelley 08/23/01 08/23/01 0 01-0523 Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Boyte 05/23/02 05/23/02 0 01-0719 Castle v. The Cadle Co. 11/29/01 11/29/01 0 01-0814 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright 06/13/02 06/13/02 0 01-0822 In re M.A.C. 02/28/02 02/28/02 0 01-0884 Samedan Oil Corp. v. Freeman 05/30/02 05/30/02 0 01-0948 Tuesday Morning, Inc. v. Melendrez 04/11/02 04/11/02 0 01-1019 Samedan Oil Corp. v. Intrastate Gas Gathering, Inc. 06/13/02 06/13/02 0 02-0013 Ritzell v. Espeche 06/20/02 06/20/02 0 02-0034 In re Bell 01/22/02 01/22/02 0 02-0055 Rendon v. Avance 05/09/02 05/09/02 0 02-0097 Richardson v. American Fracmaster, Ltd. 05/30/02 05/30/02 0 02-0305 In re Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist. 04/09/02 04/09/02 0 02-0317 In re Sanchez 04/18/02 04/18/02 0 02-0376 In re Jane Doe 10 04/29/02 04/29/02 0 02-0450 In re Texas Nat. Resource Conservation Comm'n 06/13/02 06/13/02 0 94-0016 Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Comm'n 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 94-0060 TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Flores 02/02/94 02/02/94 0 94-0066 Benefit Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Littles 04/20/94 04/20/94 0 94-0097 Lewis v. Blake 05/11/94 05/11/94 0 94-0119 Walles v. McDonald 02/23/94 02/23/94 0 94-0122 Porter v. Vick 06/02/94 06/02/94 0 94-0154 Ex parte Roosth 06/02/94 06/02/94 0 94-0156 Cantu v. Longoria 06/08/94 06/08/94 0 94-0160 Maxfield v. Terry 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 94-0198 State v. Walker 03/30/94 03/30/94 0 94-0200 Vaughan v. Walther 04/28/94 04/28/94 0 94-0222 Weck v. Sharp 09/15/94 09/15/94 0 94-0234 Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza 05/11/94 05/11/94 0 94-0244 Bradley Motors, Inc. v. Mackey 06/15/94 06/15/94 0 94-0246 J.P. v. First Court of Appeals 11/10/94 11/10/94 0 94-0302 Omega OB/GYN Assoc. v. First Court of Appeals 11/10/94 11/10/94 0 94-0327 Estate of Howley v. Haberman 06/15/94 06/15/94 0 94-0349 Blankenship v. Robins 06/15/94 06/15/94 0 94-0364 Linwood v. NCNB Texas 10/13/94 10/13/94 0 94-0379 Uptmore v. Fourth Court of Appeals 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 94-0442 Enis v. Smith 06/15/94 06/15/94 0 94-0443 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Syntek Finance Corp. 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 94-0456 In re Ament 12/22/94 12/22/94 0 94-0466 Geary v. Peavy 06/22/94 06/22/94 0 94-0473 Mackie v. McKenzie 11/03/94 11/03/94 0 94-0525 Lone Star Gas Co. v. Lemond 04/13/95 04/13/95 0 94-0527 McDonald v. Tenth Court of Appeals 11/10/94 11/10/94 0 94-0558 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mower 12/22/95 12/22/95 0 94-0581 Grant v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 10/06/94 10/06/94 0 94-0587 Herald-Post Publishing Co. v. Hill 12/22/94 12/22/94 0 94-0595 Public Util. Comm'n v. Texas-New Mexico Elec. Co. 11/17/94 11/17/94 0
Page 33
007104-001941 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
94-0618 Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-0657 Bel-Ton Electric Serv., Inc. v. Pickle 01/18/96 01/18/96 0 94-0696 Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-0712 Helena Laboratories Corp. v. Snyder 11/03/94 11/03/94 0 94-0723 Primate Construction, Inc. v. Silver 09/15/94 09/15/94 0 94-0745 Texaco, Inc. v. Garcia 01/12/95 01/12/95 0 94-0762 Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co. 12/22/95 12/22/95 0 94-0820 Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado 02/16/95 02/16/95 0 94-0830 Gunn Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hinerman 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-0844 S&A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal 02/16/95 02/16/95 0 94-0886 Sanchez v. Hastings 04/27/95 04/27/95 0 94-0896 Humphreys v. Caldwell 11/03/94 11/03/94 0 94-0954 Gormley v. Stover 03/16/95 03/16/95 0 94-0960 Board of Disciplinary Appeals v. McFall 12/01/94 12/01/94 0 94-0993 Lofton v. Allstate Ins. Co. 03/30/95 03/30/95 0 94-1037 Sage Street Assocs. v. Northdale Constr. Co. 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 94-1052 George Grubbs Enterprises, Inc. v. Bien 06/15/95 06/15/95 0 94-1057 Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 94-1058 Williams Distributing Co. v. Franklin 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1071 Public Utility Comm'n v. Texas Utilities Elec. Co. 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 94-1125 Davis v. Shanks 04/13/95 04/13/95 0 94-1136 Silk v. Terrill 04/27/95 04/27/95 0 94-1139 City of McAllen v. De la Garza 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1149 Mauriceville Nat'l Bank v. Zernial 02/16/95 02/16/95 0 94-1184 Leonard & Harral Packing Co. v. Ward 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 94-1186 Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund Bd. v. City of San Antonio 08/01/95 08/01/95 0 94-1199 Smith v.cCorkle M 03/30/95 03/30/95 0 94-1204 National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Reyna 05/11/95 05/11/95 0 94-1210 D.F.W. Christian Television, Inc. v. D'Andrea 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 94-1248 Wilson v. Burford 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1249 Wilson v. Hodges 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1250 Wilson v. Jones 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1251 Wilson v. Parker 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1294 Ex parte Hudson 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 94-1302 Farris v. Ray 03/02/95 03/02/95 0 94-1310 Quest Chem. Corp. v. Elam 05/25/95 05/25/95 0 94-1324 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Azima 03/30/95 03/30/95 0 94-1338 Smith v. Clary Corp. 07/07/95 07/07/95 0 95-0014 City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara 06/22/95 06/22/95 0 95-0015 Lesikar v. Rappeport 05/11/95 05/11/95 0 95-0036 Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co. 06/15/95 06/15/95 0 95-0039 Anderson v. Gilbert 05/11/95 05/11/95 0 95-0043 Ex parte Lesikar 05/11/95 05/11/95 0 95-0056 Texas Builders v. Keller 08/16/96 08/16/96 0 95-0057 Grigsby v. Coker 05/11/95 05/11/95 0 95-0088 General Motors Corp. v. Tanner 02/16/95 02/16/95 0 95-0115 Judice v. Mewbourne Oil Co. 04/25/96 04/25/96 0 95-0150 Tarrant County Hosp. Dist. v. Curry 03/16/95 03/16/95 0 95-0155 Gomez v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice 03/30/95 03/30/95 0 95-0166 Jordan v. Jordan 06/08/95 06/08/95 0 95-0170 Butcher v. Scott 08/01/95 08/01/95 0 95-0184 Murray v. Crest Construction, Inc. 06/22/95 06/22/95 0 95-0186 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Soignet 08/01/96 08/01/96 0
Page 34
007104-001942 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
95-0224 Frank A. Smith Sales, Inc. v. Flores 06/08/95 06/08/95 0 95-0267 American Gen. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Vandewater 06/15/95 06/15/95 0 95-0293 Ex parte Carney 07/07/95 07/07/95 0 95-0306 Ex parte Alloju 06/08/95 06/08/95 0 95-0320 Blount v. Bordens, Inc. 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0321 State v. Owens 06/08/95 06/08/95 0 95-0335 Thompson v. Community Health Investment Corp. 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 95-0339 Ex parte Anderson 06/15/95 06/15/95 0 95-0353 American Maintenance & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada 06/08/95 06/08/95 0 95-0370 Rosser v. Squier 06/29/95 06/29/95 0 95-0377 GSC Realty Corp. v. Brown 07/21/95 07/21/95 0 95-0398 Cathey v. Wood County Central Hosp. 06/22/95 06/22/95 0 95-0399 Thompson v. Davis 06/29/95 06/29/95 0 95-0405 Stokes v. Aberdeen Ins. Co. 03/07/96 03/07/96 0 95-0419 Kuhl v. City of Garland 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0420 Lone Star Energy Storage, Inc. v. Texacadian Fuels, Inc. 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-0423 Mathiessen v. Schaefer 12/22/95 12/22/95 0 95-0442 Bi-Ed, Ltd. v. Ramsey 12/13/96 12/13/96 0 95-0462 Ex parte Keene 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0481 Regency Advantage Limited Partnership v. Bingo Idea-Watauga, Inc.07/12/96 07/12/96 0 95-0507 Hall v. Lawlis 06/15/95 06/15/95 0 95-0514 Volkswagen, A.G. v. Valdez 11/16/95 11/16/95 0 95-0519 In re B.I.V. 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 95-0548 Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Hall 07/07/95 07/07/95 0 95-0555 Jones v. City of McKinney 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0597 Flores v. Haberman 08/01/95 08/01/95 0 95-0605 NationsBank, N.A. v. Dilling 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-0694 El Periodico, Inc. v. Parks Oil Co. 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-0697 Withem v. Underwood 05/31/96 05/31/96 0 95-0698 Prudential Securities Inc. v. Marshall 11/16/95 11/16/95 0 95-0703 IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp. 01/31/97 01/31/97 0 95-0746 Ex parte Keene 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0783 Hamill v. Level 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-0789 Burns v. Miller Hiersche Martens & Hayward 11/02/95 11/02/95 0 95-0793 Nueces Canyon Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Central Education 02/09/96Agency 02/09/96 0 95-0796 Mendoza v. Eighth Court of Appeals 03/07/96 03/07/96 0 95-0802 Innovative Office Systems, Inc. v. Johnson 11/22/95 11/22/95 0 95-0819 Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 95-0834 Sosa v. Central Power & Light 11/16/95 11/16/95 0 95-0859 Ellis County State Bank v. Keever 11/16/95 11/16/95 0 95-0861 Baptist Memorial Hosp. Sys. v. Arredondo 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-0871 In re M.C. 03/07/96 03/07/96 0 95-0892 City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez 10/18/96 10/18/96 0 95-0921 Fetchin v. Meno 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-0941 In re Waugh 06/14/96 06/14/96 0 95-0996 Maryland Ins. Co. v. Head Indus. Coatings & Servs., Inc. 10/18/96 10/18/96 0 95-0999 Harris County Precinct Four Constable Dept. v. Grabowski 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-1007 Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Meno 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-1037 Brownwood Regional Hosp. v. Eleventh Court of Appeals 07/12/96 07/12/96 0 95-1057 Montalvo v. Fourth Court of Appeals 11/16/95 11/16/95 0 95-1067 Dallas County v. Harper 12/22/95 12/22/95 0 95-1070 Brownwood Regional Hosp. v. Eleventh Court of Appeals 07/12/96 07/12/96 0 95-1104 Phillips v. Beavers 01/31/97 01/31/97 0
Page 35
007104-001943 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
95-1123 Peterson v. Reyna 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 95-1135 Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Demoranville 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-1148 Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper 07/08/96 07/08/96 0 95-1149 Calvillo v. Gonzalez 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-1151 Franks v. Sematech, Inc. 01/10/97 01/10/97 0 95-1152 Ortiz v. Jones 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-1199 Crawford v. Ace Sign, Inc. 02/09/96 02/09/96 0 95-1218 H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Jefferson County Appraisal Dist. 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-1227 Plexchem Int'l, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist. 05/10/96 05/10/96 0 95-1239 Bosler v. Travelers Ins. Co. 01/10/97 01/10/97 0 95-1242 Scott & White Mem. Hosp. v. Schexnider 08/16/96 08/16/96 0 95-1272 Simmons v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners 07/08/96 07/08/96 0 95-1311 Walnut Equipment Leasing Co. v. Wu 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 95-1319 Mattix-Hill v. Reck 05/31/96 05/31/96 0 95-1339 L.M. Healthcare, Inc. v. Childs 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 96-0010 K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson 10/18/96 10/18/96 0 96-0042 Bluebonnet Sav. Bank v. Jones Country, Inc. 04/12/96 04/12/96 0 96-0073 Motor Express, Inc. v. Rodriguez 07/08/96 07/08/96 0 96-0096 Inglish v. Union State Bank 01/10/97 01/10/97 0 96-0124 Temple-Inland Forest Prods. Corp. v. Henderson Family Partnership 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-0125 Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood 05/31/96 05/31/96 0 96-0148 St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dal-Worth Tak Co. 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 96-0150 Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade + Co. 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 96-0153 Tate v. E.I. duPont de Nemourso. & C 11/15/96 11/15/96 0 96-0156 Purcell v. Bellinger 01/31/97 01/31/97 0 96-0198 Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals 07/12/96 07/12/96 0 96-0199 Currie v. Travis County 12/13/96 12/13/96 0 96-0202 Larchmont Farms, Inc. v. Parra 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-0216 Tenery v. Tenery 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 96-0237 United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Williams 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-0274 Stelly v. Papania 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 96-0275 Motel 6 G.P., Inc. v. Lopez 06/28/96 06/28/96 0 96-0292 State v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 06/06/96 06/06/96 0 96-0330 Isern v. Ninth Court of Appeals 06/14/96 06/14/96 0 96-0371 Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Herrin 06/14/96 06/14/96 0 96-0374 Newman v. Obersteller 04/18/97 04/18/97 0 96-0389 Ex parte Rojo 07/12/96 07/12/96 0 96-0391 EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias 11/15/96 11/15/96 0 96-0428 De Los Santos v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 10/18/96 10/18/96 0 96-0453 Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd. v. Dorchester Master Ltd. Partnership 09/12/96 09/12/96 0 96-0478 Southland Corp. v. Lewis 02/28/97 02/28/97 0 96-0521 Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals 09/19/96 09/19/96 0 96-0555 Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz 06/19/96 06/19/96 0 96-0590 Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gilchrist 03/21/97 03/21/97 0 96-0595 Awde v. Dabeit 01/31/97 01/31/97 0 96-0598 In re Bennett 12/04/97 12/04/97 0 96-0617 D'Unger v. De Pena 09/19/96 09/19/96 0 96-0627 Elliott v. Rich 01/31/97 01/31/97 0 96-0633 National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc.02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-0706 General Motors Corp. v. Carter-Wood Motor Co. 01/22/98 01/22/98 0 96-0736 Bright & Co.amman v. H 02/13/97 02/13/97 0 96-0739 Littlefield v. Schaefer 10/30/97 10/30/97 0 96-0742 Downing v. Brown 12/13/96 12/13/96 0
Page 36
007104-001944 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
96-0743 Angus Chem. Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc. 01/10/97 01/10/97 0 96-0757 Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp. 12/13/96 12/13/96 0 96-0789 Lewis v. Lewis 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-0802 Moore v. State Bar of Texas 02/13/97 02/13/97 0 96-0853 Beneficial Personnel Servs. of Texas, Inc. v. Rey 01/23/97 01/23/97 0 96-0854 Beneficial Personnel Servs. of Texas, Inc. v. Porras 01/10/97 01/10/97 0 96-0861 Velsicol Chem Corp. v. Winograd 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-0863 United Mobile Networks v. Deaton 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-0872 Davis v. Taylor 09/25/96 09/25/96 0 96-0898 Farmers Texas County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-0910 Bird v. Rothstein 10/02/96 10/02/96 0 96-0916 Flores v. Banner 10/24/96 10/24/96 0 96-0917 Dunn v. Street 01/31/97 01/31/97 0 96-0932 Ex parte Acker 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-0953 Ex Parte DeLeon 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 96-0969 Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Texas Dept. of Human Servs. 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-0988 Page v. Geller 03/21/97 03/21/97 0 96-1041 CU Lloyd's v. Feldman 08/27/98 08/27/98 0 96-1047 Wilde v. Murchie 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-1110 Ex parte Guetersloh 12/13/96 12/13/96 0 96-1121 Geochem Tech Corp. v. Verseckes 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 96-1137 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs 04/14/98 04/14/98 0 96-1193 Bonds v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice 10/02/97 10/02/97 0 96-1213 Ex parte Evans 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-1240 Dallas Mkt. Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Liedeker 12/04/97 12/04/97 0 96-1241 Bocquet v. Herring 04/14/98 04/14/98 0 96-1262 Memorial Medical Ctr. v. Keszler 04/18/97 04/18/97 0 96-1275 Ex parte Shaklee 02/21/97 02/21/97 0 96-1285 Klein v. Dooley 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 96-1297 Sauder Custom Fabrication, Inc. v. Boyd 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 96-1298 Stuart v. Bayless 03/13/98 03/13/98 0 96-1316 University of Texas v. Ntreh 06/20/97 06/20/97 0 97-0026 Robinson v. Wils 02/06/97 02/06/97 0 97-0066 Banda v. Garcia 10/30/97 10/30/97 0 97-0081 Great Amer. Ins. Co. v. North Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 07/31/97 07/31/97 0 97-0092 Waite Hill Servs., Inc. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc. 01/16/98 01/16/98 0 97-0144 White Rose Distributing Co. v. Goldman 06/12/97 06/12/97 0 97-0148 Southwestern Resolution Corp. v. Watson 10/30/97 10/30/97 0 97-0176 Trico Tech. Corp. v. Montiel 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 97-0181 Stangel v. Parker 03/21/97 03/21/97 0 97-0276 State Bar of Texas v. Jefferson 04/02/97 04/02/97 0 97-0288 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Serrano 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0343 Harlan v. Howe State Bank 12/04/97 12/04/97 0 97-0346 Gallagher v. Fire Ins. Exch. 07/09/97 07/09/97 0 97-0347 In re State Bar of Texas 10/30/97 10/30/97 0 97-0373 In re Long 07/03/98 07/03/98 0 97-0380 Geary v. Texas Commerce Bank 04/14/98 04/14/98 0 97-0390 Newco Drilling Co. v. Weyand 01/16/98 01/16/98 0 97-0400 Reeves v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice 03/19/98 03/19/98 0 97-0465 In re Dallas Area Rapid Transit 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0478 Holmes v. Home State County Mut. Ins. Co. 12/04/97 12/04/97 0 97-0480 In re M.A.F. 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0501 In re Jones 04/14/98 04/14/98 0
Page 37
007104-001945 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
97-0515 Boyd v. American Indem. Group 12/04/97 12/04/97 0 97-0536 State Farm & Cas. Co. v. Morua 11/12/98 11/12/98 0 97-0558 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0594 Quinney Elec., Inc. v. Kondos Entertainment, Inc. 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 97-0601 Harris County v. Hermann Hosp. 03/13/98 03/13/98 0 97-0631 D.S.A., Inc. c. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist. 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-0638 MacGregor Med. Ass'n v. Campbell 10/29/98 10/29/98 0 97-0651 Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co. 10/30/97 10/30/97 0 97-0710 Lowrance v. Horton 01/16/98 01/16/98 0 97-0721 Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Knighten 08/25/98 08/25/98 0 97-0795 Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc. 10/08/98 10/08/98 0 97-0802 Stary v. Debord 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0819 In re R.J.J. 01/16/98 01/16/98 0 97-0853 In re Gabbai 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-0860 Hoechst-Celanese Corp. v. Mendez 02/13/98 02/13/98 0 97-0871 United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Keith 06/05/98 06/05/98 0 97-0872 In re American Optical Corp. 07/03/98 07/03/98 0 97-0883 State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Vaughan 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-0910 Husain v. Khatib 03/13/98 03/13/98 0 97-0941 State v. Roland 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-0945 Jones v. Fowler 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-0973 Conoco, Inc. v. Amarillo Nat'l Bank 06/10/99 06/10/99 0 97-0989 Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Franco 06/05/98 06/05/98 0 97-0998 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Whitehead 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 97-1007 In re D.A.S. 07/03/98 07/03/98 0 97-1008 In re R.A.H. 07/03/98 07/03/98 0 97-1009 Jones v. City of Houston 08/25/98 08/25/98 0 97-1011 Garcia v. Martinez 10/08/98 10/08/98 0 97-1030 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 97-1122 H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 97-1127 Bourg Chem. Distrib v. Mosier 02/26/98 02/26/98 0 97-1170 City of Palestine v. Davis 09/24/98 09/24/98 0 97-1195 Meeks v. Rosa 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 97-1215 Pat Baker Co. v. Wilson 06/23/98 06/23/98 0 98-0017 In re Louisiana Pacific Corp. 06/23/98 06/23/98 0 98-0030 In re Bruce Terminix Co. 06/05/98 06/05/98 0 98-0035 Galveston County Mun. Util. Dist. v. City of League City 06/05/98 06/05/98 0 98-0039 In re Colonial Pipeline Co. 05/08/98 05/08/98 0 98-0047 Yanes v. Sowards 04/22/99 04/22/99 0 98-0055 Essenburg v. Dallas County 09/24/98 09/24/98 0 98-0090 In re Barber 11/12/98 11/12/98 0 98-0140 In re Dickason 10/15/98 10/15/98 0 98-0175 Coastal Banc v. Helle 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 98-0210 GFTA Trendanalysen B.G.A. Herrdum GMBH & Co. v. Varme 04/22/99 04/22/99 0 98-0265 State v. Rodriguez 01/07/99 01/07/99 0 98-0266 Davis & Davis v. Gregory 05/28/98 05/28/98 0 98-0287 Coastal Marine Serv. of Texas, Inc. v. Lawrence 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0314 Benavidez v. Travelers Indem. Co. 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0340 Jones v. Youngblood 11/05/98 11/05/98 0 98-0366 In re Houston Lighting & Power Co. 08/25/98 08/25/98 0 98-0388 Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen 12/31/98 12/31/98 0 98-0445 Union Pac. Resources Co. v. Hutchison 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0455 Hochheim Prairie Farm Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Tweedell 07/01/99 07/01/99 0
Page 38
007104-001946 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
98-0484 Toranto v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. 04/29/99 04/29/99 0 98-0509 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer 04/01/99 04/01/99 0 98-0514 Motor Vehicle Bd. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, Inc.08/26/99 08/26/99 0 98-0559 City of El Paso v. Bernal 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0568 H & R Block, Inc. v. Haese 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0662 In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. 02/11/99 02/11/99 0 98-0744 Texas Commerce Bank N.A. v. New 09/09/99 09/09/99 0 98-0773 Bradley's Elec., Inc. v. CIGNA Lloyds Ins. Co. 06/10/99 06/10/99 0 98-0788 Ritchey v. Vasquez 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0835 Quaestor Inv., Inc. v. State of Chiapas 07/01/99 07/01/99 0 98-0844 Associated Brokers v. McFarland 11/12/98 11/12/98 0 98-0875 Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Levinson 04/22/99 04/22/99 0 98-0916 In re L&L Kempwood 12/02/99 12/02/99 0 98-0934 In re Perritt 03/11/99 03/11/99 0 98-0945 Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair 02/04/99 02/04/99 0 98-0992 Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Vargas 01/14/99 01/14/99 0 98-0993 State v. Miguel 08/26/99 08/26/99 0 98-1070 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie 07/01/99 07/01/99 0 98-1091 In re K.L.C. 04/01/99 04/01/99 0 98-1156 Gross v. Kahanek 09/16/99 09/16/99 0 98-1161 Wembley Investment Co. v. Herrera 12/02/99 12/02/99 0 98-1167 Borneman v. Steak & Ale, Inc. 04/06/00 04/06/00 0 99-0057 Walls Regional Hosp. v. Bomar 12/16/99 12/16/99 0 99-0085 Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Davis 12/09/99 12/09/99 0 99-0110 Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. O'Nan 07/22/99 07/22/99 0 99-0126 Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Jones 12/02/99 12/02/99 0 99-0132 Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Welch 12/09/99 12/09/99 0 99-0224 In re Doe 1(II) 03/10/00 03/10/00 0 99-0228 Koch Refining Co. v. Chapa 12/16/99 12/16/99 0 99-0230 McNally v. Guevara 06/28/01 06/28/01 0 99-0263 Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado 11/04/99 11/04/99 0 99-0268 Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. McClendon 09/14/00 09/14/00 0 99-0306 Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 04/06/00 04/06/00 0 99-0416 Fireman's Fund County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hidi 02/10/00 02/10/00 0 99-0443 University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Margulis 01/06/00 01/06/00 0 99-0446 Johnstone v. State 03/09/00 03/09/00 0 99-0450 In re Univ. of Texas Health Ctr. 10/26/00 10/26/00 0 99-0463 Johnstone v. State 03/09/00 03/09/00 0 99-0466 Cris Equipt. Co. v. D. Wilson Constr. Co. 04/20/00 04/20/00 0 99-0500 In re Daisy Mfg. Co. 04/13/00 04/13/00 0 99-0501 State & County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Miller 01/18/01 01/18/01 0 99-0612 Mireles v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety 12/09/99 12/09/99 0 99-0621 Kinnear v. Texas Comm'n on Human Rights 04/20/00 04/20/00 0 99-0634 Bishop v. Texas A&M Univ. 06/29/00 06/29/00 0 99-0671 Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Story 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 99-0672 Texas Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Whitefield 06/21/01 06/21/01 0 99-0679 Texas Workforce Comm'n v. Texas-CIO AFL 06/22/00 06/22/00 0 99-0704 In re Union Pacific Resources Co. 12/02/99 12/02/99 0 99-0769 City of Sherman v. Hudman 02/03/00 02/03/00 0 99-0772 In re Living Centers of America, Inc. 04/13/00 04/13/00 0 99-0916 Levy v. City of Plano 03/09/00 03/09/00 0 99-0950 In re G.C. 07/06/00 07/06/00 0 99-0986 In re K.C.A. 06/22/00 06/22/00 0
Page 39
007104-001947 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 677ef933299a478c85ccf194acf33b52
99-0995 Lenert v. State Farm Lloyds Ins. Co. 10/21/99 10/21/99 0 99-1018 Morgan v. Anthony 08/24/00 08/24/00 0 99-1027 Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Guerrero 12/21/00 12/21/00 0 99-1037 M. D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich 08/24/00 08/24/00 0 99-1075 Nunez v. Caldarola 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 99-1112 K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt 06/29/00 06/29/00 0 99-1131 Clark v. Pimienta 04/26/01 04/26/01 0 99-1204 Texas Workers' Compensation Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer 08/24/00 08/24/00 0 99-1212 In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. 06/29/00 06/29/00 0 99-9082 In re Petition of Nolo Press, Inc. 04/15/99 04/15/99 0
Page 40
007104-001948 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8124-000001 Benczkowski, Brian A
From: Benczkowski, Brian A Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:30 PM To: Dinh., Viet; '[email protected]' Subject: FW: NRNRaggi
FYI. NRA alert sent out on Reena Raggi on Friday- see below. Monica Goodling is beginning to get press calls, although press is telling her that no one at NRA will go on record. Sounds like -
BAB
- Original Message-- From: Barbara Ledeen To: Willett, Don
have you got this already?
Barbara Ledeen Director of Coalitions Senate Republican Conference
______Forward Header______Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT A CERTAIN JUDICIAL NOMINATION Author: "Charles H. Cunningham"
U.S. District Judge Reena Raggi, who is nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, upheld in its entirety New York City's "assault weapons" ban in Richmond Boro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New York, 896 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. N.Y. 1995), aff'd 97 F.3d 681 {2nd Cir. 1996).
Signed into law by then-Mayor Dinkins, the ban defined "assault weapon" extremely broadly, to include even the 8-shot Ml Garand carried by Gls in World War 11, sold to citizens ever since through the federal government's Civilian Marksmanship Program, and used by tens of thousands of competitive shooters in government-supported matches. The law had no grandfather clause, and police used the City's rifle/ shotgun registration system to contact and threaten gun owners.
Judge Raggi's opinion accepted arguments made by the city and by the Center to Prevent Handgun violence; parts of the opinion read like anti-gun propaganda, as when she stated, "The rational link !.,.~~--~~~ ~ • ,1.,. 1: ~
007104-001949 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8159 Ut::I.Wt::t::I I !JUUlll. safety and a law proscribing possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns is so obvious that it would seem to merit little serious discussion." (In fact, the plaintiffs had presented documentation that misuse of any kind of rifle or shotgun in the city was extraordinarily low.)
Circuit, upheld in its entirety New York City's "assault weapons" ban in Richmond Baro Gun Club, Inc. v. City of New
York, 896 F. Supp. 276 (E.O. N.Y.
1995), aff'd 97 F.3d 681 {2nd Cir. 1996).
Signed into
law by then-Mayor Dinkins, the ban defined "assault weapon"
extremely broadly, to include even the 8-shot M1 Garand carried by Gls in World War II, sold to citizens ever since through the federal government's Civilian Marksmanship Program, and used by tens of thousands of competitive shooters in government-supported matches. The law had no grandfather clause, and police used
the City's rifle/shotgun registration system to contact and threaten gun owners.
Judge Raggi's opinion accepted arguments made by the city and by the Center to Prevent Handgun violence; parts of the opinion read like anti-gun propaganda, as when she stated, lThe rational link between public
safety and
a law proscribing possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns is so obvious that it would seem to merit little serious discussion." (In fact, the plaintiffs had presented documentation that misuse of any kind of rifle or shotgun in the city was extraordinarily low.)
Received: from mailsims1.senate.gov {(156.33.203.10)) by mailexch.senate.gov with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 0049CE30; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:33:49 -0400 Received: from visi.net (arsenal.visi.net) by mailsims1.senate.gov (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10 ) with SMTP id
0071 04-001950 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8159 Willett, Don
From: Willett, Don Sent: Thursday, September S, 2002 8:53 PM To: Heather Wingate (E-mail); Dinh, Viet; Brett Kavanaugh (E-mail) Subject: FW: (no subject)
Kay's e-mail below.
--Original Message--- From: Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 8:02 PM To: Willett, Don Cc: Tim Goeglein (E-mail) Subject: (no subject)
Don, I hope you know that I do not in any way, shape or form have any kind of frustration with you whatsoever. You are truly awesome and it is just such a privilege to work with you.
It just seems like we have spent every waking and sleeping hour on something so futile. I don't mind losing a battle or two so long as I can take some of the bastards out as well. And I see them not only emerging unscathed but victorious, smug and even better financed than before. There is no downside for them. And frankly, there is no upside for all the blood we've shed.
To that end? I think a couple of things need to happen, and I told Tim Goeglein this
0071 04-001951 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8250 Oh well. I hope that you are home with a large, ice cold beer. I'm going to go and do something rare -- spend time with my child and read to him before he goes to sleep.
Talk to you later -
KRD
0071 04-001952 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8250 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:59 AM To: Koebele, Steve; Benczkowski, Brian A; Charnes, Adam; Dinh, Viet; 'Brett M. Kavanaugh (E-mail)'; Willett, Don Subject: RE: Prep Session for Hearing
-Original Message-- From: Estrada, Miguel A. [mailto:M£[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:58 AM To: Sutton, Jason; Koebele, Steve; Sales, Nathan; Benczkowski, Brian A; Charnes, Adam; Dinh, Viet; 'Brett M. Kavanaugh (E-mail)' Cc: Willett, Don Subject: RE: Prep Session for Hearing
--Original Message-- From: Dinh, Viet [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:46 AM To: Cham es, Adam; Benczkowski, Brian A; Sales, Nathan; Koebele, Steve; Sutton, Jason; Estrada, Miguel A.; ' Brett M. Kavanaugh (E-mail)' Cc: Willett, Don Subject: RE: Prep Session for Hearing
0071 04-001953 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5206 September 17, 2002
NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts has edschedul a hearing for Tuesday, September 24,
2002 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksending on Office"The Buil
DC Circuit: The Importance anceof Balon the Nation's Second Highest Court."
Senator Schumer l wi lpreside.
By order of the Chairman
007104-001954 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8403-000001 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 6:07 PM To: Brett Kavanaugh (E-mail) Subject: Miguel report Attachments: estradalatinocoalition2.doc
Brett,
And could you fo rward it to Mercy and Leonard (whose emails I can't seem to find)?
Gracias! Nathan
0071 04-001955 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234 1
MiguelEstrada and the Future of American Latinos
The Mexican American LegalDefense andEducation Fund’s (MALDEF) newfound “concerns”aboutthe nominationofMiguelEstradato the U.S. CourtofAppeals forthe D.C. Circuit reveal more about the group than theydo about the nominee. The special-interest groups like MALDEFthat purport to speakfor American Latinos are showinghow out of touch they are with the everyday concerns of our community. MiguelEstrada is anominee of unmatched qualifications. When confirmed, he willbecome the first Hispanic ever to sit on the D.C. Circuit, whichis widelyregarded as the second-highest court in the land. This willbe an historic achievement, one that was unthinkable onlya generation ago, and one that represents a significant milestone in our long struggle to overcome racism, poverty, and cultural exclusion. We in the Latino community should be cheeringMiguelEstrada, not just for his own sake, but because his accomplishments show what everyone of us is capable of achievingif we put our minds to it.
Andyet some entrenched special-interest groups call them the Hispanic Establishment have chosen to place their narrow political agenda ahead of the broader interest in seeing aqualified Latino confirmed ofthe to nation’s one highest courts. These groups advocate the defeat of one of their own simplybecause he maynot subscribe to the political orthodoxythat theyhave presumed to establish. Estrada has committed the unpardonable sin for aHispanic: independent thought. Some of our Latino leaders have decided to put partisan politics overourcommunity’s interests simplyto satisfythe needs oftheirpartybosses. SacrificingEstrada’s nomination to the demands ofapartisanlynch mob is to anactofbetrayal the millions ofLatinos who live in this country, and the millions more who one dayhope to.
The Hispanic Establishment’s reaction to the MiguelEstradanomination makes clearthat more is at stake than whether this superbly well-qualified attorneytakes the federalbench. More is at stake than whether one more barrier to Hispanic achievement our historical exclusion from the D.C. Circuit bench falls today, tomorrow, orsome time in the nearfuture. What’s at stake is the identityof the American Latino community, and our colorful diversityof voices. MALDEFandlike-mindedgroups apparentlybelieve that one cannot be an authentic Latino unless one agrees to toe their partyline, and to refuse to thinkfor oneself. If these groups have their way, no Hispanic will ever be promoted to high government office unless he or she holds the Establishment-approved set ofpoliticalbeliefs.
We at The Latino Coalition know that the Hispanic communityin America is far more diverse than MALDEFand others give us credit for being: we are arich tapestry representing the full range ofpoliticalperspectives, religious views, and socio-economic circumstances. As a federaljudge on the D.C. Circuit, we are confident that MiguelEstrada willbe acredit to Latinos everywhere, no matter what their background or beliefs.
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008Tel. ● 202 -546-0807Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001956 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 2
Defending Anti-Gang Initiatives
Perhaps the most preposterous and repetitive claim MALDEF makes is thatEstrada’s effort to defend the constitutionalityof anti-ganglaws in Chicago andAnnapolis somehow is evidence ofhis indifference to the difficulties facedby racial minorities, includingLatinos. Nothing couldbe further from the truth. The innovative anti-loiteringinitiatives in Chicago, Annapolis, and countless other American cities represent efforts byminority communities to take back their streets from the gang members and drugdealers who habitually terrorize innocent citizens, mostofwhomare minorities themselves. Estrada’s efforts to defendthese ordinances before the U.S. Supreme Court and before afederal trial court in Maryland demonstrate his commitment to using the law to better the lives ofpoor residents of the inner city, who regrettablytend to be members of minoritygroups.
People from across the political spectrum, and members of all races, agree that gang- related violence anddrug traffickinghave had adevastatingimpact on the lives ofinner-city residents. Gang members routinelyloiter on street corners, both to establish control over neighborhood residents and “marktheirturf”againstrivalgangs. to As aresult, people who live in gang-infested neighborhoods often are afraid to even leave their homes. Simplywalking to the grocerystore, orescorting one’s childrento the neighborhoodpark, exposes themto the risks ofdrive-byshootings anddrug solicitations. No wonder aJustice Department report issued during the Clinton Administration concluded that gangshave“[v]irtu allyovertake[n] certain neighborhoods, contributing to the economic and ine socialdecl of these areas and causing fear and ifestyl l e changes amongaw-abidingresidents.” l OJP Monograph, Urban Street Gang Enforcement (1997).
That’s whyanti -ganglaws like the ones in Chicago and Annapolis have the strong backing of minorities who live nation’s in our crime -ridden neighborhoods. After 74-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Moore saw his house sprayed withbullets during arecent gang turf war, he explained: “Theconstitutionissu pposed toprotectmyrightstoo. What’samore basic right than feeling safeonmypropertyorbeingabletowalkonmystreet?” Patriot-Ledger (Quincy, Mass.), June 11, 1999. Bennie Meeks, head of the Southwest Austin Council on Chicago’s westside, likewise wondered “ifwedon’tuthislawasatool,howarewegoing se to get these guys off the corner? What about the constitutionalrights of my neighbors whosekidshavetowalkbythatcornereverydayontheirwaytoschool?” New YorkTimes , June 12, 1999.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, aDemocrat New who YorkTimes the calls the “fiercest advocate”ofChicago’s anti-ganglaw, New YorkTimes ,June 12, 1999, explains that his ordinance was designed to protect these vulnerable citizens from predatorygang members who seek to do them harm. In fact, Mayor Daleylikens gang members “Itellyouone to terrorists: thing, those drug ers deal and gang-bangers are terrorists,too.” Chicago Sun-Times , Nov. 23, 2001. Mayor Daleyknows what inner-cityminorities know, but what their self-appointed “representatives”in Washington-basedinterest groups apparentlydo not: that these laws were written to help the residents ofpoor, urban neighborhoods, who suffer disproportionatelyfrom the scourges of gang violence anddrug trafficking. “Idon’tseetoomanygangbangerson Lake Shore Drive.” Chicago Tribune ,Oct. 1, 2000. Those who criticize such efforts to
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008Tel. ● 202 -546-0807Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001957 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 3
improve the lot ofour nation’s most vulnerable citizens rarely live in the conditions that prompted Chicago, Annapolis, and countless other cities to adopt these innovative measures.
Estrada is hardly the only lawyer to submit briefs defending the constitutionality of anti- gang laws. In fact, the President Clinton’s Solicitor General Seth Waxman filed a Supreme Court briefarguing in favor ofChicago’s ordinance. So did Representative Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. And so did the Attorneys General from 31 states, including five states represented by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee: California, Del aware, l I inois,l New York, and Northina. Carol
MALDEFalso faults Estrada for his service on the Board ofDirectors of the Center for the Community Interest. CCI is a mainstream organization dedicated to serving as a voice for the community on crime and quality-of-life issues. It would seem that inner-city residents can no longer count on establishment groups to advance their interests, and organizations like CCI have stepped in to fill the void. In particular, CCI has defended “Megan’s Laws”and other measures to protect children from sexual predators, has assisted public-housing tenants in evicting drug dealers from their housing projects, and has fought for mandatory HIV testing of rapists.
CCI is supported by individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum. According to the group’s web site, one ofits principal sources offunding is the New York-based Bernard and Anne Spitzer oundation. F In fact, their son, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer served on CCI’s board before he was elected to public office. No one would mistake Spitzer for a right-wing activist; a Democrat, he is best known for spearheading a lawsuit brought by several states against the tobacco industry. CCI’s advisory board also includes Ronald Truss, president of the Birmingham, Alabama chapter of the NAACP. Other prominent liberals and Democrats with ties to CCI include Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist; Fred Siegel, a scholar with the Democratic Leadership Council; Richard Girgenti, former New York State Director of Criminal Justice under Governor Mario Cuomo; Seymour Lachman, a member of the New York State Senate; and Stephen Kaufman and Nettie Mayersohn, members of the New York State Assembly.
Remarkably, MALDEFand the rest of the Hispanic Establishment were nowhere to be seen several months ago, when the Senate Michael confirmed Bayl son to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania. Like Estrada, Judge Baylson has served on CCI’s board of directors. And yet his affiliation with the group got a free pass. The groups’ latter-day concern about CCI illustrates that they are less concerned about improving the lot of underprivileged Latinos, than they are in ensuring that American Latinos dutifully subscribe to their established political orthodoxy.
A Balanced Approach to Law Enforcement
Although Estrada spent his early career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, and as a lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office during the Clinton Administration, he also has gone out of his way to ensure that criminal defendants receive proper treatment from the criminal justice system. For instance, Strick in ler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), Estrada represented a
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. ● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008 Tel. ● 202-546-0807 Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001958 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 4
capital-murder convict in his death-row appeal before the Supreme Court. Tommy David Strickler, whom Estrada represented free of charge, was convicted of abducting a college student from a shopping center and murdering her. Estrada argued that the Commonwealth of Virginia had unlawfully withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. He thus showed his willingness to stand up for the rights of all people, even those convicted of brutal crimes, when the government abuses its law-enforcement powers.
Estrada’s commitment to the constitutional rights ofcriminal defendants, as well as his manifest skills as an appellate advocate, explain why Barbara Hartung, his co-counsel in the case, asked him to help represent Tommy Strickler. Hartung has written the Senate Judiciary Committee to emphasize that Estrada “valuhighlyes the ju st and proper application of the law. . . . Miguel’s respect for the Constitution and the law may explain why he took on Mr. Strickler’s case, which at the bottom concerned the fundamental fairness of a capital trial and death sentence. . . . I should note that Miguel and I have widely divergent political views and disagree strongly on important issues. However, I am confident that Miguel Estrada will be a distinguished, fair and honest member ofthe federal appellate bench.”
MALDEFwrongly assumes that Estrada was responsible for deciding what positions to take in the cases he argued on behalfoflaw enforcement when he was at the Solicitor General’s office. In fact, Estrada was a career lawyer in a civil service position, and it was his role in the cases cited by MALDEFto advance the positions chosen by his supervisors in this case, representatives of the Clinton Administration not to make policy himself. To the extent that it is “troubled”by any ofthese positions, MALDEF’s beefis with policymakers like President Clinton and Attorney General Reno, not with line attorneys like Miguel Estrada.
Take, for example, the first case MALDEF cites as evidence ofEstrada’s alleged pro- prosecution bias: Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997), where the court considered whether to create an exception to the “knock and announce rule”when police officers execute a search warrant in a felony drug investigation. The first name listed on the Clinton Administration’s amicus briefin that case was Walter Del inger l , then serving as President Clinton’s Solicitor General. The same is true of the second cited case: Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994), where the Clinton Administration’s amicus briefwas authorized by Solicitor General Drew Days.
MALDEF’s treatment of Richards is additionally problematic because the group inaccurately describes the Clinton Administration’s position in that case. Although the state of Wisconsin was arguing for a categorical, per se exception in felony drug cases, Estrada argued for a much narrower, case-by-case exception, as the following excerpt from the oral argument transcript reveals:
Question: “You are suggesting ageneral standard, not a per se rule. Is that an appropriate characterization ofyour briefand ofyour argument?”
Mr. Estrada: “That is right, Justice Kennedy. All we’re saying is that the standard that is offered by [defense counsel] is so low that in the absence of any further information the officer’s knowledge that the case involves drug-dealing will itself be
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. ● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008 Tel. ● 202-546-0807 Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001959 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 5
areasonable basis for acase-specific reasonable belief that there is danger to the officers.”
Question: “Well, you’re not supportingthe Wisconsin rule in anyevent, the Wisconsin supreme courtperse rule.”
Mr. Estrada : “No, we’re not.”
It should come as no surprise that the Supreme Court unanimouslyadopted the position Estrada articulated on behalf of the Clinton Administration.
Defending CongressionalPrerogatives
MALDEFnext objects to an amicus briefEstrada Dick filedinerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428(2000), where he urged the Supreme Court to defer to a congressional statute that limited the reach Miranda of v. Arizona,384U.S. 436(1966). In fact, Estrada has appeared on both sides Miranda of -type cases. CampaneriaIn v. Reid, 891F .2d1014(2dCir. 1989) Estrada’s first case as a practicinglawyer, and apro bono matter to boot Estrada argued that a police interrogation must cease immediately after asuspect unequivocallyinvokes his constitutional right to remain silent.
Campaneria, who was stabbed, was believedbypolice to have shot his assailant. After the altercation, Campaneria was treated at ahospital, andpolice officers Miranda readhim his warnings. The defendant who hadlittle understanding of the Englishlanguage, was being treatedin an intensive care unit, and was onreplied, medication “No, Idon’twantto talkto younow, maybe come backlater.”AlthoughCampaneriahadunequivocallyinvokedhis right under Miranda to remain silent, the officercontinued, “Ifyou wantto talk, now is the time to do it.”Campaneriathen agreedto talk, andduringthe subsequentinterview made incriminating statements. Estrada, who working was with the LegalAidSociety andederalDefender the F Services Unitin New YorkCity, arguedboththathis client’s state ments were not voluntarily made, and that theyhad been obtainedin violationMiranda. of
As the Campaneria case makes plain, the arguments Estrada advancedin Dickerson on behalf ofhis client do not reflect anylatent hostilityto the rights of criminaldefendants. Instead, Estrada’s client the MaricopaCountyAttorney’s Office believed that the Supreme Court shoulddefer to an act of Congress, 18U.S.C. §3501, that sought to restore the traditional “voluntariness”testforthe admissibilityofconfess ions. Under that standard, coerced confessions are unconstitutional, but avoluntary confession need not be excluded simply because of atechnicaldefect in warnings given to asuspect.
Estrada’s central argumentin Dickerson was that acongressional enactment was entitled to judicial deference, andhe urgedthe Supreme Courtto respectCongress’s independentpower to interpretthe Constitution. Estrada’s argumentthus was consistent withthe Senate Judiciary Committee’s reportaccompanying§ 3501, ch concluded whi that “volu ntaryconfessionshave beenadmissibleinevidencesincetheearliestdaysoftheRepu blic.” 1968USCCAN at
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008Tel. ● 202 -546-0807Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001960 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 6
2137, 2124. The briefwas consistent with the Senate’s additional conclusion that “the rigid and inflexibl e requirements of the majority opinion Miranda in casethe are unreasonable, unrealistic, and extremely harmfulto law enforcement.” 1968 USCCAN at 2132. Thus, to the extent that the Dick erson briefreveals anything at all about Estrada’s personal views, it shows only that he has a healthy respect for the power of Congress to enact laws designed to address pressing social problems.
More fundamentally, the arguments a lawyer makes on behalf of a client are not evidence of his or her personal views. Rule 1.2(b) ’s ofModel the RulesABA ofProfessional Conduct makes clear that “[a] lawyer’s representation ofa client . . . does not constituante endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.” On the contrary, lawyers have an ethical obligation to make all reasonable arguments that will advance their clients’ interests. According to Rule a lawyer 3.1 may make any argument if “there is a basis in aw l and fact for doing so that ous,is notwhich frivol udesincl a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Lawyers would violate their ethical duties to their clients if they only made arguments with which they would agree if they were a judge.
If confirmed, Estrada can be trusted to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda, just as he would do with all other binding precedents. History is full of examples where a lawyer who loses a case faithfully applies that precedent after being elevated to the bench. In a companion case to Miranda, U.S. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall argued that police officers should not be required to give warnings before questioning crime suspects. “An inflexibl e constitutional rul e turning on . . . the recitation or omission of a warning may be easier to apply, but weieve bel that itl , wimore l often than not, cast out the baby with the bath.”Briefofthe United States at 38. Yet Justice as a on the Supreme Court, Justice Marshall had no difficulty applying Miranda and its progeny. Duck In worth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), Justice Marshall dissented from the majority’s decision to narrow the scope of Miranda: “I refuse to acqu iesce in the continuing debasement ofthis historic precedent.”
A Commitment to Eradicating RacialDiscrimination
As a lawyer who has himself overcome significant obstacles, Estrada has shown a keen awareness of the continuing problem of racial discrimination, and an equally keen commitment to eradicating it. For example, Mary Jo White, President Clinton’s U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, invited Estrada to join a working group that she tasked with finding ways to increase the number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys from minority groups. Estrada gladly accepted this invitation and has made important contributions to the group’s efforts to enhance minority hiring in that office.
As one of only four Hispanics ever hired to clerk for the Supreme Court, Estrada is profoundly aware of the lack of minorities in the upper echelons of the judiciary. He now seeks to become the first Hispanic ever to sit on the D.C. Circuit. Given the difficulty he himself has faced throughout his career, as a Circuit Judge, Estrada would go out of his way to give
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. ● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008 Tel. ● 202-546-0807 Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001961 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 7
consideration to all qualified clerkship candidates, no matter what their race or economic circumstances.
MALDEF’s citation to a 1998 USA Today article about how Supreme Court Justices rarely hire minority clerks suggests nothing to the contrary. Estrada was quoted as stating that the statistical underrepresentation does not mean that the Justices are deliberately discriminating against minority applicants: “ifthere was some reason for underrepresentation, it would be something to look into, but I don’t have any reason to think it’s anything other than a reflection of trends in society.”In other words, Supreme Court Justices hire their clerks from a narrow pool ofapplicants: those who have graduated at the top oftheir classes from the nation’s top law schools, and who have gone on to clerk for well-regarded lower-court or varietyjudges. of F a reasons, this pool does not include a large number of minorities. According to Estrada, these “trends in society,”not invidious discrimination on the part ofthe Justices, explain why there are relatively few minority Supreme Court clerks.
Fairness to l , A Richl and Poorike Al
Both in government service and private practice, Estrada has sought to ensure that all citizens regardless of their economic, social or ethnic background receive the law’s fullest protections and benefits. Because of his commitment to upholding the law, he has garnered strong bipartisan support from those who are familiar with his record. These individuals are certain that Estrada would guarantee everyone who came before him a fair trial. The Chief of Staffto former Vice President Al Gore wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee that: “Miguel will rule justly toward all, without showing favor to any group or individual. . . . The challenges he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely devoted to helping those in need. . . . Those without means or without advantage will get afair hearing from Miguel Estrada.”
Although Estrada has represented corporations in some cases, this in no way implies that as a judge he would give them an unfair advantage in court any more than the fact that he represented a death row inmate means that he would give an advantage to convicted murderers. As discussed above, ethics rules make plain that an attorney’s representation ofa particular client does not mean that the attorney endorses the client’s views or actions. As a well-respected appellate lawyer, it has been Estrada’s professional duty to represent his clients to the best ofhis ability. It would be inaccurate and unfair to characterize any position he has taken on behalf of a client as indicative of how he would rule as a judge.
The Senate and, more to the point, the Hispanic Establishment have followed this understanding when examining the records of recent nominees now serving on Circuit Courts. For example, Roger Gregory, originally nominated by President Clinton to the 4th Circuit, once represented General Motors against sex-discrimination and pay-disparity claims under Title VII. And Clinton appointee Sandra Lynch of the 1st Circuit represented General -Electric in a race discrimination claim by an African-American employee who alleged that he was passed over for promotions in favor of white employees. Both were confirmed with relatively little to-do, and MALDEFnever saw fit to oppose their nominations.
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. ● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008 Tel. ● 202-546-0807 Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001962 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 8
Confirm Estrada Now!
Notmuch canbe saidaboutMiguelEstrada’s superlative qualifications thathasn’t alreadybeen discussed. The recipientofthe American BarAssociation’s high est possible rating aunanimous “wellqualified” Estrada is an American success story. But regrettably, some self- appointed“representatives”ofthe Hispanic communityhave chosen to overlook Estrada’s stellarlegal careerandoppose not him because theybelieve he lacks the necessary skills, not because theydoubt his fairness and integrity, but because he dares to thinkfor himself. Now, when American Latinos are on the verge of another milestone in our long struggle for equality andprosperity one of our own on the secondhighest court in the land some in the Hispanic Establishment have sold out the aspirations of our people, trading it for abit of momentaryinfluence with the power brokers in Washington, DC. We have everyconfidence that the Senate willignore this cynicalploy, and confirm MiguelEstrada to the D.C. Circuit speedily.
725 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.● Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0008Tel. ● 202 -546-0807Fax ● www.TheLatinoCoalition.com
007104-001963 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5234-000001 Image not available for this document, ID: 0.7.19343.86 8 000001 6
007104-001964 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8668-000001 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:34 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Shedd and McConnell
Great. thanks
- Original Message-- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:29 PM To: Dinh, Viet Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Shedd and McConnell
Heather is on this.
(Embedded image moved "Dinh, Viet"
Record Type: Record
To: "Charnes, Adam"
cc: "Ayres, David"
0071 04-001965 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8709 Brad and Brett,
Can you raise for immediate senior staff consideration
thanks
--Original Message-- From: Charnes, Adam Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:06 PM To: ' Bradford_A._ [email protected]'; Dinh, Viet Subject: RE: Shedd and McConnell
We are on it. Thanks.
-Original Message-- From: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:38 PM To: Charnes, Adam; Dinh, Viet Subject: Re: Shedd and McConnell
I think you guys need to know about this.
------Forwarded by Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP on 11/15/2002 12:34 PM -----
Bradford A. Berenson 11/15/2002 12:31:07 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Heather Wingate/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message bee: Records Management@EOP Subject: Re: Shedd and McConnell (Document link: Bradford A. Berenson)
Senator Hollings has just informed certain individuals that the Democrats are planning to filibuster Dennis Shedd and that there will be a cloture vote - not a confirmation vote - on the Shedd
0071 04-001966 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8709 Heather Wingate 11/ 15/2002 12:23:09 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message cc: bee: Subject: Re: Shedd and McConnell (Document link: Bradford A. Berenson)
Update: looks like McConnell/Shedd will not move until early next week now. My guess is
Heather Wingate 11/15/2002 10:26:37 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Kyle Sampson/WHO/EOP@tOP, Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc: brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop, alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop, timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop, heather wingate/who/eop@eop Subject: Re: Shedd and McConnell
--Original Message - From:Kyle Sampson/WHO/EOP To:Bradford A. Berenson/WHO/EOP@EOP Cc:brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop, alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop, timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop, heather wingate/who/eop@eop
0071 04-001967 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8709 Uate: 11/1'::J/LUUL lU:1'::J:lb AM Subject: Re: Shedd and McConnell
Bradford A. Berenson 11/15/2002 10:12:34 AM Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message cc: Subject: Shedd and McConnell
Message Sent To: ______Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP Kyle Sampson/WHO/EOP@EOP Alberto R. Gonzales/WHO/EOP@EOP Timothy E. Flanigan/WHO/EOP@EOP Heather Wingate/WHO/EOP@EOP
Message Sent To: ______
kyle sampson/who/eop@eop bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop heather wingate/who/eop@eop
0071 04-001968 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8709 Message Copied To:______
kyle sampson/who/eop@eop bradford a. berenson/who/eop@eop brett m. kavanaugh/who/eop@eop alberto r. gonzales/who/eop@eop timothy e. flanigan/who/eop@eop heather wingate/who/eop@eop
0071 04-001969 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8709 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:44 PM To: Ciongoli, Adam; '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam Subject : RE: Ronnie White, the Sequel -I would alsoII note -Original Message- From: Ciongoli, Adam Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:32 PM To: ' [email protected]'; Dinh, Viet Cc: Charnes, Adam Subject: Re: Ronnie White, the Sequel
These are quite good.
--Original Message--- From: [email protected]
Background points we gave press office last week are as follows:
0071 04-001970 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8879 007104-001971 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8879 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:56 PM To: Benczkowski, Brian A; Charnes, Adam Cc: 'Kavanaugh, Brett'; '[email protected] ' Subject: RE: Pryor
I love it when a plan comes together. This is exactly how this game should be played. Congratulations, Brian, and please pass my thanks on to Ed Haden also. Brett, can you pass on to Ben with my congrats?
thanks
Viet
-Original Message- From: Benczkowski, Brian A Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:34 AM To: Dinh, Viet; Charnes, Adam Subject: FW: Pryor
FYI
BIRMINGHAM NEWS
Pryer's reputation eyed
Inquiries standard for judicial nominees
01/17/03
MARY ORNDORFF News Washington correspondent
WASHINGTON The U.S. Justice Department is polling Alabama lawyers about the legal reputation of Attorney General Bill Pryor, a sign his candidacy for a seat on a federal appeals court is gaining steam.
The White House is considering nominating Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and government inquiries into his qualifications and background are standard be-fore the nomination is submitted to the U.S. Senate.
"I told them that I think he is very qualified by intellect, temperament, character and his fairness," said Anthony Joseph, a Birmingham lawyer who has worked both for and against Pryor on past cases. He
007104-001972 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8887 said a Justice Department employee called him this week.
If confirmed by the Senate, Pryor would take a lifetime seat on the Atlanta-based appeals court that is one judicial level below the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, a member of the Senate- Judiciary Committee and Pryor's former boss, has said President Bush was considering nominating the 40-year-old state prosecutor.
The president's original nominee, federal magistrate William Steele of Mobile, languished for 15 months without a confirmation hearing. Black organizations had objected to Steele's ruling in a racial harassment case that eventually was overturned. For the 108th Congress, which took office this month, Bush instead nominated Steele for a district court seat in Mobile.
Race can be a major factor in judicial nominations and since Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi endorsed a segregationist for president and had to resign his post, Republicans are e.specially sensitive to the issue. Sessions himself was turned down for a federal judgeship by the committee on which he now sits because of allegations of racial insensitivity.
Joseph, who is black, said the Justice Department did not ask any race-related questions.
"Based on my knowledge of him, I would be very surprised (if race became an issue in Pryor's confirmation)," Joseph said.
Cleo Thomas, an Anniston lawyer, said the Justice Department called him Tuesday about Pryor.
"I told them he had an excellent reputation in the legal community," Thomas said. "He has a breadth of legal experience and education and the rightjudicial temperament."
Thomas, who is black, said race was never mentioned, but they did ask who he thought would oppose a Pryor nomination.
"I told them I didn't know of anybody who would oppose him," Thomas said.
But Pryor, a partisan Republican, prolific writer and frequent public speaker, has made no secret of his positions on several major issues facing the federal judiciary. He's against abortion, and he believes in protecting the Second Amendment rights regarding gun ownership, states' rights trumping the federal government's, government displays of the Ten Commandments and student-led prayer in public schools.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate have in the past opposed nominees they believe are too beholden to their political beliefs to be an objective jurist, but there has not been public criticism of Pryor along those lines.
007104-001973 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8887 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:44 AM To: Charnes, Adam; Bencz.kowski, Brian A; Dinh, Viet; ' [email protected]' Subject: RE: Hatch
Adler just posted the following on National Review's Corner:
WHAT'S HATCH THINKING? [Jonathan H. Adler] The good news is that Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch will expedite the confirmations of most of President Bush's judicial nominations. I say most be-cause Hatch is definitely putting the brakes on some others. At this morning's business meeting, Hatch announced he plans to hold more hearings on Justice Priscilla Owen and Judge Charles Pickering. As if giving Schumer & Co. another chance to take pot shots at the nominees will somehow make their confirmation easier. In more positive news, it looks like Miguel Estrada may finally get a committee vote next week.
-Original Message- From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:56 AM To: Charnes, Adam; Benczkowski, Brian A; Dinh, Viet; '[email protected]'; Willett, Don; Bene-di, Lizette D; Koebele, Steve; Hall, William; Remington, Kristi L; Chenoweth, Mark; Joy, Sheila Subject: Hatch
Hatch just said, explicitly: "in due course, we're going to have hearings for Priscilla Owen and Judge Pickering."
--Original Message--- From: Sales, Nathan
Hatch just announced that he's being held over.
007104-001974 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5474 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:37 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: 'David_G._ [email protected] '; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: ABA alert
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:23 PM To: Dinh, Viet Cc: David_G ._ [email protected]; Alberto_ [email protected] Subject: ABA alert
The ABA web site indicates that the ABA committee has "re-rated" all 14 of the circuit nominees except for Pickering. Any idea what is going on?
007104-001975 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8921 [email protected]
From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:26 PM To: [email protected]; David_G._ [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Heather_Wingate@oa .eop.gov Cc: Dinh, Viet Subject: Wash Post editorial page views on Sutton
Post is likely to strongly oppose Sutton, as expected. (Wittes WILL await the hearing to hear Sutton's side of case.) The Post is very concerned about the federalism line of cases and views Sutton as an extreme crusader on that issue, particularly in two Federalist Society speeches of Sutton that Wittes has read. (As always, Wittes has done his homework and read everything.}
t the Post has supported Owen. Pickering, Estrada, and Roberts.
007104-001976 Document ID: 0.7.19343.8923 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, January31, 200310:49AM To: Corallo, Mark; GoodlingMonica;, 'Kavanaugh, Brett'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected] ov'; '[email protected]';Charnes, Adam; Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: Neil Lewisand Pickering
Needhelp;pleaseadvise. (b) (5)
- t .
007104-001977 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9055 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Monday, February 3, 2003 12:39 PM To: Benczkowski, Brian A; ' [email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Brown, Jamie E {OLA); '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Estrada Rapid Response distribution list
-Original Message- From: Benczkowski, Brian A Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:00 AM To: ' [email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Brown, Jamie E{OLA); Dinh, Viet; '[email protected]'; 'Wendy_J. [email protected]' Subject: RE: Estrada Rapid Response distribution list
-Original Message--- From: [email protected] [mail to:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:53 AM To: Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: Charnes, Adam; Brown, Jamie E (OLA); Dinh, Viet; [email protected]; Wendy_ J._ [email protected] Subject: RE: Estrada Rapid Response distribution list
(Embedded image moved "Benczkowski, Brian A" to file:
0071 04-001978 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9067 pic19019.pcx) 02/03/2003 10:46:31 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc: "Dinh, Viet"
This list looks good from the legislative and press sides of things.
Finally, can we also set up a dedcate-d fax into the- Veeps office, and get key fax numbers for Senate leadership offices? As you may be aware, when things are busy, e-mail often takes several hours to penetrate the Senate's firewall. In the interest of keeping the Rapid Response truly rapid, we probably should have a back-up plan via fax.
BAB
- -Original Message- From: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:46 AM To: Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: Charnes, Adam; Heather Wingate (E-mail); Wendy Grubbs (E-mail) Subject: Estrada Rapid Response distribution list
As per my conversation with Heather, below are the e-mails for an Estrada Rapid Response distribution group list. It includes the e-mails into the Veep's office, RPC, Senate R leadership, Hatch nominations team, and a counsel to each Republican member of the committee.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
007104-001979 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9067 [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Chad_ [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] Steve_ [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Message Sent To:______
"Brown, Jamie E (OLA)"
0071 04-001980 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9067 [email protected]
From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2003 4:20 PM To: Dinh, Viet Subject: Re: for nomination next Tuesday March 11
I am tiger woods.
- Original Message From:
I am dinh
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March OS, 2003 4:14 PM To: Dinh, Viet Subject: Re: for nomination next Tuesday March 11
I am kuhl.
- Original Message - From:
0071 04-001981 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9274 '. I know that is optimistic, but you know me.
Who is WH lead on Carolyn Kuhl?
- Original Message--- From: Charnes, Adam Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:59 PM To: ' [email protected]' Cc: Benczkowski, Brian A; Joy~Sheila; 'Helgard_ [email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Dinh, Viet Subject: RE: for nomination next Tuesday March 11
We had a conference call this morning with OLP, Ben, Bill, Sen. Sessions' staff, and Ed Haden to discuss planning for this nomination, and I think
--Original Message-- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:41 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Charnes, Adam; Benczkowski, Brian A; Joy, Sheila; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: for nomination next Tuesday March 11
Brett M. Kavanaugh 03/05/2003 03:27:32 PM
Record Type: Record
To: "Joy, Sheila"
0071 04-001982 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9274 Kavanaugh}
0071 04-001983 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9274 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:54 PM To: Brown, Jamie£ (OLA); '[email protected]'; 'Wendy Grubbs (E mail)'; Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: RE: Estrada Reply
Jamie. - thanks
-Original Message- From: Brown, Jamie- E (OLA) Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:48 PM To: Dinh, Viet; ' Brett_M._ [email protected]'; Wendy Grubbs (E-mail); Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: FW: Estrada Reply
0071 04-001984 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9312 Dinh, Viet
From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:04 PM To: Benczkowski, Brian A; '[email protected]'; Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: Estrada Reply
Me four. - Sent from my BlackBerry.
-Original Message-- From: Benczkowski, Brian A
--Original Message--- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:44 PM To: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Cc: Benczkowski, Brian A; Dinh, Viet; [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: Estrada Reply
(Embedded image moved uBrown, Jamie E (OLA)"
0071 04-001985 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9539 Record Type: Record
To: "Dinh, Viet"
cc: Subject: FW: Estrada Reply
As per the e-mail below, Tom Boyd {former MG/OLA) has offered to send the following letter. -
-Original Message- From: Boyd, Tom (mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:52 PM To: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Subject: FW: Estrada Reply
Jamie, the attached is what I would propose to send to the Senate Judiciary Committee if the Department thinks it to be useful. Please let me know what the collective wisdom is at your earliest opportunity. And I would also need to have confirmation that what the text says is accurate; it is my understanding of past and present Departmental policy and it squares with John Bolton's recollection as well. He has also reviewed and approved this draft.
> Dear Senator. > > On February 11, you introduced into the Senate Record a copy of a May 10, 1988, letter which I wrote when I served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs during the Reagan Administration. In my letter, I noted that the Department had historically provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with documents generated by nominees to the Supreme Court during their earlier tenure as senior policy officials in the Department of Justice. In particular, I outlined the policy of the Department that had been applied to the production of documents pursuant to the nomination of Robert Bork to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. These included privileged documents relating to upurely internal deliberations" involving Judge Bork, as well as his "work product" while Solicitor General. You used my letter as proof of a Departmental precedent for the release of similar documents relating to the time spent in the Department by Manuel Estrada. whose > nomination to become a judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is now
0071 04-001986 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9539 pending before the full Senate. I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree, however, with your conclusion. > > Judge Bork, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia before him, held senior policy positions in the Department before being nominated to positions on the Supreme Court. They had been placed in those positions, each one a senior political position with policy responsibilities, by virtue of a presidential nomination and subsequent confirmation by vote of the United States Senate. Mr. Estrada, so far as I know, was never in such a position at the Department of Justice. He was, instead, a career line attorney in the Solicitor General's Office. As such, he was apolitical, a member of the career civil service, and without any public policy portfolio. Historically, the Department has treated line attorneys like Mr. Estrada very differently from more senior, policy officials such as Judge Bork. For example, it has generally declined to provide line attorneys as witnesses before Congress on matters of public policy, and it has similarly declined, generally, to release their> internal deliberations for review without cause. > > Judge Bork held the position of Solicitor General of the United States, the Government's chief advocate before the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist, like Associate Justice Scalia after him, had been Assistant Attorney General for the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Next to the Attorney General, the head of OLC is President's chief lawyer. All of these gentlemen were appointed by the President of the United States and all of them held their positions at his pleasure. Not so for Mr. Estrada. Except for his area of expertise, he was no different from the (number?} of career civil servants who populate the lawyer ranks within the Department and who serve regardless of political affiliation. In fact, Mr. Estrada served with distinction under both President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton. He should be treated no differently than other career lawyers are or have been. Accordingly, unless some independent cause can be established which would provide a basis for> the Senate to review the work he produced in confidentiality during his service as a career line attorney, I believe it would be both unwise and unprecedented for the Department and President Bush to do so unilaterally. > > > Sincerely,
NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail ([email protected]), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
007104-001987 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9539 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9539 007104-001988 Sales, Nathan
From: Sales, Nathan Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:41 PM To: ' [email protected]'; Charnes, Adam Subject : RE: Sutton Attachments: Sutton TPs-positive.doc; Sutton TPs-disability.doc; Sutton TPs-federalism.doc; Sutton letters--disability.pdf
Here are the essential TPs: (1) the positive, general talkers; (2) disability talkers; and (3) federalism talkers.
--Original Message-- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:36 PM To: Charnes, Adam Cc: Sales, Nathan Subject: Re: Sutton
yes, but can you send me the best "allegations/responses" talkers. Also, if we
(Embedded image moved "[email protected]" Record Type: Record To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: "[email protected]" 0071 04-001989 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705 0071 04-001990 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705 11501 Mayfield Road Apt. 902 Cleveland, OH 44106 May 21, 2001 The Honorable Senator Mike DeWine Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee 140 Russell Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator DeWinc A few weeks ago my sister caUed to tell me that President Bush nominated Jeff Sutton to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I was thrilled to hear the news. While working as Solicitor General for the State of Ohio, Jeff represented me in a lawsuit the Ohio Civil Rights Commission brought against Case Western R~serve University on my behalf. I sought but was denied admission to the Case Westei:n medical school. l_alleged then, as I continue to believe now, thaf. the school denied my application for one impermissible reason: I'm blind. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission agreed with me. After a thorough investigation, the Commission determined that I was otherwise qualified for admission and that the school could make reasonable accommodations to enable me to pursue training to become a psychiatrist. The case worked its way through the Ohio courts and ultimately landed in the Ohio Supreme Court. It was at this point that I first met Jeff Sutton. Working for the State, Jeff took my case on, firmly convinced I had been wronged. I recall with much pride just how committed Jeff was to my cause. He believed in my position. He cared and listened and wanted badly to win for me. I recall well sitting in the courtroom of the Ohio Supreme Pourt listening to Jeff present my case; It was then that I realized just how fortunate I was to have a lawyer of Jeff's caliber so devoted to working for me and the countless of others with both similar disabilities and dreams.. Although I ultimately fell short in the courts,· Jeff Sutton stood firm by my side. My experience confirmed what President Bush understands: Our nation would be greatly served with Jeff Sutton on the federal bench. Sincerely yours, _ ~~ Cheryl A. Fischer 007104-001991 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 Equal Justice Foundation Protecting the rights of Ohio's disadvantaged citizens Kimbtrly M. Skaggs, Esq. 36 W. Gay St. • Suite 300 Extcutivt Dirtctor Columbus, Ohio 43:215 t 614.221.9800 Gary M . Smith, Esq. Sptdal Litigation Counsel 800.898.0545 / 614.221.9810 John A. Btll, Esq. May 29, 2001 Senior Attorney VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Honorable Mike DeWlne United States Senate 140 Russell Senate Bldg. Washlngron, DC 20510 Re: Jeffrey S. Sutton Dear Senator DeWine: I am wrldng to express my support of President Bush's nomlnadon of Jeffrey S. Sutton to the ll'nlted States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Orcult. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Sutton for several years and I, like many others, have the utmost regard for his Intellect and talent. What may be somewhat different about my support for Mr. Sutton is the fact that I do not share the "conservative" views for which Mr. Sutton is known. In fact, my views may be the polar opposite. I serve as Execudve Director of the Equal Justice Foundation, a non-profit, legal services provider that specializes In class-acdon, impact lldgadon for the benefit of disadvantaged Individuals and groups. Prior to this position, I served as law clerk to two federal Judges. In those capacities, I became quite familiar with Mr. Sutton's work. I admired Mr. Sutton's abilities so much that, upon Joining the Equal Justice Foundation, I actively recruited him to become a member of the Equal Justice Foundation's Board of Trustees. Much to his credit, Mr. Sutton accepted and has been extremely supportive of the Foundation's work. In sum, I believe that Mr. Sutton possesses all the necessary qualities to be an outstanding federal judge. I have no hesitation whatsoever In supporting his nomination. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further Information. Sincerely, ~ru~ Kimberly M. Skaggs Equol Jwtic1 is Herr rjf~ualjuslicdoundation.com 007104-001992 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 T · H · E Office of the De.1n John Deaver Drinko Hall College of uw 55 West 12th Avenue Columbus, OH 4321~1391 OHIO Phone 614-292-2631 SfATE FAX 614-292-1383 UNIVERSITY July 2, 2001 Senator Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee United States Senate 433 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with regard to your committee's consideration of President Bush's nomination of Jeffrey S. Sutton to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit . Let me first mention a few things about myself, to put my support for Mr. Sutton's confirmation by your committee and the current Senate in context. I am a lifelong Democrat, and served as the Senior Law Clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren and as Assistant Solicitor General of the U.S. in the 1960's. In the latter capacity I argued on behalf of the United States and various government agencies in 18 cases in the U.S. · Supreme Court. For the past 31 years I have been a legal educator, teaching at Notre Dame, visiting at Virginia, Michigan, and S.M.U., and serving as Dean at the University of Toledo and, from 1985 to 1993, as Dean at The Ohio State University College of Law. 1n that latter capacity I came to know Jeff Sutton, first as an outstanding law student, and then, with my assistance, as a law clerk for Justices Powell and Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. When Jeff returned to Columbus to engage in private law practice with the Jones Day law firm's office, I asked him to co-teach a U.S. Supreme Court seminar with me (something I had been doing for over 20 years), and we did so with considerable success until I retired from Ohio State in 1997 and moved to Florida. Jeff and I complemented each other in the seminar, bringing somewhat differing views to some matters but agreeing on many. I might add that, in addition to teaching Constitutional Law and related subjects for over 30 years, I served for several years as the Legal Director of the National Center for Law and the Handicapped in South Bend, Indiana, and have both expertise in and sensitivity toward those with disabilities. 007104-001993 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 July 2, 2001 Page2 I believe that Jeff Sutton would be an excellent federal appellate judge. He is a very bright, articulate and personable individual who values fairness highly. He is also a competent and experienced appellate lawyer. Indeed, Jeff's qualifications for such a position should be evident from perusal of his resume. I do not regard him as a predictable ideologue, and believe that your committee will reach the same conclusion after his hearing before you. I recommend and support his confirmation without reservation. Tiiank you for your attention and consideration. Sincerely yours, ~.:... \,. 0 t L FJn~ Beytagh ~ 1 Dean Emeritus The Ohio State University College ofLaw 007104-001994 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 Bounds Law Libmy THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA August 1, 2001 SCHOOL OF LAW Senator Omn Hatch 104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510 Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing in support of Jeffrey Sutton's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me £int identify myself and state my interest in this nomination. I am Professor of Law and Library Director at The University of Alabama School of Law. I am also the Co-Director of the school's Disability Law Institute. My academic interests and scholarship focus on the interaction bctw,cen disability law and Out systeai of federalism: r attended oal _aigument last' October in the Gam.tt-we where I saw ~k Suttoh an:,hvro other capable atfomeys ·(Micha# Gottesman' and Seth Wmnan) represent their clients in a complicated case that testi In my opinion,Jeffrcy Sutton is well qualified to sit on the Sixth Circuit and should be confirmed. The primary qualification fora court of appeals judge is intcllectoal cap-.city, adequate legal experience and the ability to apply the prcccdcnts established by the Supreme Court faithfully and intdligcntly. There is little question that he meets these smndards. He graduated £int in his law class from Ohio Smtc, then clerked for Judge Meskill on the Second Circuit, then for Justices Powell and Salia. He has served as Ohio's State Solicitor. He has become a partner in the prestigious Jones Day law fum. He has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court He teaches a course in Supreme Court Litigation at the College of Law at Ohio State. By any objective measure, Mr . Sutton has dcmonstrsted the depth and quality of experience that arc necessary for a Court of Appeals judge. My limited interactions with him also give me the sense that he is a kind and dccen~ man. , - There ~VC: been several well publicized objections to Mr. Sutton's nomination by ms~ty tjgh~ advcx.:acr groups. _ 'I'm sure that you are aware of them,' so I won't rcpc2t them J:i~e in detail. lam frankly concerned by the prospect that nominees for fedcal : judgeships may be penalized for doing what good lawyers ale supposed to do: representing their clients zealously. -Similarly, I am also alamied by criticisms that Mr. Sutton's · · participation in the Gamti case has single handedly dismantled fcdcnl protections for Box 870383 Tuscaloosa. Alabimll 35,487-0383 {205) l-il-5925 -1- FNC (205) 348-1112 007104-001995 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 disabled citizens. I consider that assertion to be flawed. most obviously because courts and not lawyers decide cases. The problem with the criticism, however, goes deeper and reflects a misunderstanding of the role of the courts in deciding constitutional issues. The matter of Congressional power to regulate the states, whether under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause or the Spending Clause is a constitutional issue of the greatest significance. There is a division of opinion on these important points of law, supported by respectable aiguments made in good faith by each side. To treat Jeffrey Sutton's participation, as an attomey, in the resolution of these issues has the unfortunate effect of reducing the process of judicial review to one of issue advocacy stripped of the structutal constitutional questions. I also see no "agenda" on Mr. Sutton's part to target disabled citizens. The objections to his nomination seem to focus on the result in Gamtt. That decision, however, turned on the issue of the remedy for an alleged violation of the ADA by a state entity, not on the substantive obligation not to discriminate. I read or heard nothing in the briefs or oral arguments to indicate that Mr. Sutton was pursuing an agenda wider than the issues on which the Court had granted certiorari, or doing anything other than representing his client's interests. It's important to keep in mind that as State Solicitor of Ohio in 0/JiQ Civil Right.r Co,,,,,nssion 11. Car, Wutmr Re.rme Ullitlmi!J, 76 Ohio St. 3d 168 (1996), he represented the Ohio Civil 'Rights Commission in its attempt to require that Case Westem.'s Medical School admit an academically accomplished blind woman, Cheryl Ftscber. Just as I would not infer an anti-disabled agenda from Mr. Sutton's participation in Gam#, neither would I assume from his role in the Fischer case that he had the opposite inclination. Rather, he seemed to be a good lawyer acting in his client's interests. In sum, I encourage you to viewJeffrey Sutton's nomination to the Sixth Circuit favorably and expeditiously. Thank you for your consideration. s~ / I Professor]=~· of Law Co-Director, Disability Law Institute Director, Bounds Law Library cc: Senator Leahy Senator DeWine -2- 007104-001996 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 34170RDWAYS1REET,N.W. WASHINGTON,D.C.20016 June 18, 2001 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 re: Jeffrey Sutton Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch: I understand that Jefrrey Sutton is under consideration as a nominee for the position of United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. I have known Mr. Sutton professionally for four years and have high regard for him. Both as Solicitor General for the State of Ohio and as a partner at Jones, Day, Mr. Sutton handled important cases in the United States Supreme Court in which I was personally involved. I consider Mr. Sutton both a gifted appellate advocate and a fine human being. I know that some have questioned whether the position Mr. Sutton advocated last Term in the Garrett case reflected antipathy on his part toward the Americans with Disabilities Act. I argued that case against Mr. Sutton, and I discerned no such personal antipathy. Mr. Sutton vigorously advanced the constitutional position of his client in the case, the State of Alabama~ doing so was entirely consistent with the finest traditions of the adversary system. Thank you for considering these views. Your sincereJy, . J I LJJ 007104-001997 Document ID: 0.7.19343.5705-000001 Dinh, Viet From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:47 AM To: Brown, Jamie E (OLA); Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Pickering Because of the shortage of office space in OLP, we will move a temporary desk into BB's office for the judge to utilize while he is in town to prepare for his upcoming hearing. On second thought, Brian, pis tell judge that he can come in any time, because an extra week of preparation in your proximity would be good in any event. --Original Message--- From: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:44 AM To: Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: Dinh, Viet; ' [email protected]' Subject: RE: Pickering But we have you scheduled to eat all of your meals with him when he's in town for his hearing. I think they're even getting you a room in the hotel where he's staying, just to make things more convenient. --Original Message--- From: Benczkowski, Brian A Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:40 AM To: Dinh, Viet; Brown, Jamie E (OLA}; ' [email protected]' Subject: RE: Pickering I am unavailable today for any calls unless they originate from a 202 area code. And I'm on a flight out of town this evening. Someone else needs to be Omega Travel. -Original Message-- From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:37 AM To: Brown, Jamie E(OLA); '[email protected]'; Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: RE: Pickering thanks. That's our understanding also. Bencz, have a fun one hour conversation with the judge. -Original Message-- From: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:36 AM 0071 04-001998 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9701 To: Dinh, Viet; ' [email protected]·; Benczkowski, Brian A Subject: RE: Pickering -Original Message- From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:34 AM To: ' [email protected]'; Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: Brown, Jamie E (OLA) Subject: RE: Pickering he is also on my call list. Can someone loop in with Makan also? Jamie, you got any intell? --Original Message--- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:17 AM To: Benczkowski, Brian A Cc: Dinh, Viet Subject: Re: Pickering I know nothing; (Embedded image moved "[email protected]" to file: Record Type: Record To: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP cc: "[email protected]" 0071 04-001999 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9701 Thanks. BAB Brian A. Benczkowski Staff Director and Senior Counsel Office of Legal Policy United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 4228 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-2004 Fax.: (202} 514-1685 E-mail: [email protected] 0071 04-002000 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9701 Dinh, Viet From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2003 6:57 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Charnes, Adam; Benczkowski, Brian A; ' [email protected]' Subject: Re: Pryor and ABA Agreed let's chat manana. -Original Message-- From: [email protected] (Embedded image moved "[email protected]" Record Type: Record To: "[email protected]" cc: Brett M. Kavanaugh/WHO/EOP@EOP Subject: Re: Pryor and ABA No idea but suffice it to sa -Original Message--- 007104-002001 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9965 From: [email protected] I understand from Pryor that they switched the person doing his nominee from an attorney in GA to an attorney in NC. The new attorney is E. Osborne Ayscue Jr. of Helms, Mulliss & Wicker in Charlotte, NC. 0071 04-002002 Document ID: 0.7.19343.9965